I want to share my concerns about HB18, a bill that inserts the word “ethnicity” into the existing Hate Crimes bill. The bill purports to safeguard all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, a laudable intent with which I strongly agree. However, the placement of “ethnicity” into the Hate Crime law could have far-reaching and perhaps not immediately obvious consequences. The bill would prohibit unlawful discrimination because of, among other things, ethnic or national origin. Discrimination targeting people of Jewish ethnicity is commonly known as antisemitism. Antisemitism, as adopted in the Virginia code last year, has a very specific definition, one based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA WDA). That definition gives examples of certain types of criticism of the state of Israel and labels them antisemitic. One of those examples includes: • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor, ie accusing it of being an apartheid state; This seems to mean, if this bill were to be adopted, that under certain circumstances, a person criticizing the state of Israel could be accused of a hate crime. What circumstances? Lines 27-30 of the bill state: “Conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of . . . ethnic or national origin is unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter.” Does that mean, if I were to carry a protest sign in a (Virginia) public place that says “End Israeli Apartheid” under this bill, in combination with the IHRA Definition, I could be charged with a hate crime? In the section entitled Liability for Defamatory Material on the Internet beginning at line 216 it says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be liable for (i) Any action taken by it voluntarily in good faith to restrict access to, or availability of, material that the provider considers to be . . . harassing or intended to incite hatred . . . on the basis of race . . . ethnic or national origin, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or (ii) Any action taken to enable, or make available to information content providers or others, the technical means to restrict access to the information provided by another information content provider. What are the implications of this section? Could an internet provider, say a college, be asked to prohibit internet access to the apartheid findings of multiple human rights organizations, based on the example in the IHRA definition that deems referring to Israeli apartheid as antisemitic? Or could a high school teacher be prohibited from assigning digital material by Ta-Nehisi Coates and others because it discusses racism and a student finds it uncomfortable? This bill appears to be an insidious broadening of ways to accuse people of hate crimes and stifle important learning and expressions of criticism about difficult and uncomfortable topics. I ask that you look closely at this bill and consider all its implications. Sincerely, Kathy Drinkard Springfield, VA

Good afternoon! My name is Amy Melnick-Scharf, Chair of the Legislative Committee for the Jewish Community Relations Committee at the Jewish Federation of Richmond. I am here today on behalf of several Jewish Federations throughout the Commonwealth. I am here to thank the bi-partisan Patrons of HB18 A bill relating to hate crimes and discrimination adding ethnicity. This bill, when passed, will ensure and safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination in employment and in public because of one’s ethnic origin. For new members of the Committee and the House, this legislation passed the House last year, and in the Senate, similar legislation overwhelmingly passed the Senate. The session ended without achieving a compromise. The Jewish Community Federation strongly supports this legislation which will strengthen the Commonwealth’s hate crime laws. This legislation adds the word ethnic to the list of protected classes, which also includes race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin. Ethnicity a collective identity which often includes the belief in a common history and origin and may include shared traditions, language, and religion. An ethnic group consists of a shared common culture based on cultural, historical, linguistic, and unique historical and social experiences. Examples include Sikh’s, Han Chinese, Zulu, Kurds, Basques, and the Jewish people of which I am a part. It's essential to note that the perception and definition of ethnicity can vary widely among different societies and individuals-even among the ethnicity. As a Jewish person-this is my religion; but it is also my ethnicity. There are many Jews who are non-white, who speak a variety of languages and who do not practice the religion at all, or who practice it very differently; however we are all ethnically Jewish. While this legislation is not about any single community, nor does it name any specific community and nor should it – this bill will ensure that that Jewish individuals are included in Virginia’s laws against discrimination and assault regardless of whether they identify or are targeted based on Judaism’s religious or ethnic aspects. As we have seen in recent months with the increase in antisemitism, which according to the FBI has risen over 300% since October 7th, often Jewish people are targets of hatred because of their ethnic identity regardless of their level of religious observance. Thank you for your support of HB18.

Please vote NO on HB18. Adding the word “ethnicity” will not prevent antisemitism, nor strengthen the Hate Crimes bill. It could potentially infringe on the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the Commonwealth, and by allowing the prosecution of Jews who disavow Zionism. Again, please vote NO on HB18.

HB18 is literally selling the soul of our state to Israel

Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity". The definition of ethnicity is vague and can be confused, misused, and abused. VOTE NO on HB 18.

The addition of "ethnic animosity" is a very broad term and could easily be abused and actually used to stifle free speech and in this case expanded to charge someone with a hate crime. This is extremely problematic due to the current incorrect definition of antisemitism by the IHRA and the state of Virginia which unfortunately conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism which it is not. I would be concerned if you add "ethnic animosity" that criticizing the state of Israel could be found to be discriminatory against an ethnic group, given the way that Virginia and the IHRA has chosen to define antisemitism. For example: I would be concerned that if a person at a rally to ask the state of Israel to stop killing Palestinians, that if that if things became physical, and the person who was at the rally was charged with simple assault against someone there was Jewish that they would also be charged with a hate crime. Ethnicity is one aspect of someone who is Jewish. Adding these words to the bill could of course be used very confusing because "ethnicity" is too broad a term and also hard to determine what someone's ethnicity is. Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity".

HB18 is a bill that echoes multiple past Supreme Court cases in which overly ambiguous hate-speech aimed laws have been overturned for their unconstitutionality- not even touching on their ineffectiveness. I speak as a Jew who will not allow the beliefs of zionism to speak for me. Jews are protected in America, and have been for many decades. If the safety of a people depends on the existence of a foreign nature then that safety is a lie- bread and circuses. This bill goes against the right to free speech as strongly as any I have ever seen. History remembers the killers.

I would like to note that not only does HB18 attack free speech, it could potentially infringe the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the commonwealth. The logical conclusion of this bill is that the commonwealth could persecute Jews for practicing Judaism in a way that challenges and discredits zionism and the israeli state.

Please vote no on HB18. HB 18 safeguards all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, including discrimination because of ethnicity. However, this language (ethnicity) directly ties the bill to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which was placed in the code last year and conflates discrimination against persons of Jewish heritage with criticism of Israel. This bill would in effect make it possible to charge someone who criticizes Israel's practices and policies with a hate crime, based on the IHRA's definition of antisemitism otherwise understood as discrimination of the Jewish ethnic group, thus silencing that criticism. There is plenty of evidence that the IHRA definition is being used in the US and in Europe to do just that. Please refer to the following reports that suggest how the IHRA definition is being used. https://imeu.org/article/imeu-policy-analysis-9-ihra-definition-silences-speech-for-palestinian-righ https://palestinelegal.org/distorted-definition https://elsc.support/news/breaking-new-report-reveals-human-rights-violations-resulting-from-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism Unless it can be guaranteed that this bill can't be used to charge Israel's critics with hate crimes and silence criticism, it should not be adopted.

Vote NO on HB18. It is a direct assault on the constitutional right of free speech. We need more, not less, protection for citizens to express their views openly and without fear of reprisal and discrimination. If passed, this bill would open the door to discrimination against persons who are critical of Israel’s policies, including, it should be added, Jews. It could, in other words, be invoked to discriminate against a religious minority. This is awful. We must hold fast to the separation of church and state. This bill does the opposite. Vote NO on HB18.

Please vote NO on HB18 - extremely misleading attempt at suppressing the rights of Palestinians and other suppressed peoples from defending their rights to exist and free speech in general. Also absolutely unconstitutional.

This is unconstitutional and if you vote for it you will very likely be held liable in the future. This is an attack on free speech and if you champion free speech/democracy your morally obligated to vote no on this otherwise you will be a hypocrite. Also Helmer if Israeli lobby is telling you what to do then you are a power hungry individual who needs to reevaluate and i hope you can never sleep at night again thanks for your time

HB18 attacks freedom of speech. Further, it allows for discrimination against religious practitioners. Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Israel is political, and Judaism is religious. But this bill could allow for the discrimination of Jewish people who do not align with Israel’s politics. What happened to the separation of church and state? I understand wanting to protect Jewish people, but this may actively target some Jewish people while it claims to protect a minority. Vote NO on HB18.

The Commonwealth does not have the right to interfere with Jewish people's criticisms of other Jewish people, or label intercommunity strife as discrimination. This law does not protect from religious discrimination, only punishes the wrong kinds of religious expressions.

Please vote NO on HB 18. This bill attacks free speech, and could potentially infringe the freedom of religion. VOTE NO! Thank you!!

I urge all the members of this committee to vote against HB 18 - “Hate crimes and discrimination; ethnic animosity, penalties.” Although at face value this bill seems fairly innocuous, the consequences of this bill are questionable and therefore the General Assembly should study it further before taking any further action on it. The problem is that the current language of the bill could be construed to include the weaponized "IHRA definition of antisemitism" which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2023, and includes criticism of a foreign government, which is constitutionally protected free speech. Therefore, unless the IHRA definition is removed from the code, HB 18 could impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in Virginia, if passed. For this reason, I urge this committee to reject HB 18 at this time, to protect free speech in Virgina.

I am deeply concerned about the contents of the proposed bill HB18 and its potential consequences for members and residents of the Commonwealth. This bill is a direct attempt to dismantle free speech within the Commonwealth, and should be voted down immediately and in perpetuity. Not only would this bill would allow the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to be used in prosecution, but the language is so ambiguous and vague that it could come to mean no Virginian is allowed to criticize any foreign state representing ethnic majorities. From a personal perspective, as a proud and active lifelong member of Congregation Beth Ahabah, the third oldest and and fourth largest congregation on the East Coast, I can say with confidence that this bill will NOT protect Jews in the commonwealth. All it will do is limit free speech and political dissident. In fact, setting such dangerous precedent would put more Jews in harms way and potentially add on to already real and present hurt and harm directed at our community. The continued conflation of all Jews to the modern state of Israel is both deeply disrespectful and incredibly dangerous. It teaches those who may be unfamiliar or unaware of Jewish practice that all Jews, regardless of nationality, have an allegiance to the foreign modern state of Israel thus perpetuating an age-old anti-Jewish trope that we cannot be trusted or seen as equal countrymen. Currently, the modern state of Israel that I, and most Jews, have been aligned with arguably without consent and, in some cases, against our collective will, is dominating the world stage because of the violence it is inflicting upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. They continue to do so despite the overwhelming calls for ceasefires being heard around the world and within this commonwealth. Such violence is being perpetuated by a regime that is intentionally parroting Jewish words, phrases, and stories in order to not only shield its true intent of white supremacy behind the traumatic lineage of world Jewry, but to send a message to all governments, who again may or may not be familiar with Judaism, that the current actions being taken by Israel are not only to protect itself but to protect the entirety of the Jewish Population. If protecting Jews in the commonwealth is a goal of this legislature, may I ask how this bill aids in that pursuit? From where I, and many other Jews like myself, stand taking a position in favor of HB18 sends a message that we are not acceptable as "Jew" in the eyes of this legislature seeing as we refuse to stand in support of a debatably genocidal, and certain apartheid state and its regime. This sets a precedent that quite frankly, none of us are capable of making as it changes the ways in which the Jews are permitted to practice our religion. As far as I am concerned, HB18 impacts the freedom of religion just as much as it does the freedom of speech. In looking to my so-called leaders in this legislature, I see such dissonance between you all and your constituents. There are genuine instances of hate in this commonwealth that have yet to be fully addressed and can be traced all the way back to our creation as a colony in 1607. You have the choice to be addressing those deep inequalities and inequities, and instead make the choice to police how residents of this commonwealth speak and practice our faiths. Vote NO to HB18 and all bills that aim to attack valid criticisms of foreign states.

Comments Document

ADL strongly supports HB18. We have provided a written statement as to the incredibly increase in antisemitic incidents impacting our community. HB18 is an important step to combat hate and bias.

So wonderful to see us finally cracking down on guardians and conservators. Well done! Also glad to see us crack down on hate crimes especially if we’re going to continue fueling the disastrous Applied Behavioral Analysis. There must be guard rails. So thank you Dan. And as for HB81, I wish that had become law years ago! I nearly took my life twice. Now you’re going to rub salt in the scar?

My name is Michael Gordon. I am a recovering addict. My clean date is 06/06/2008. I writing this letter because it my duty as a health professional to bring to the table how important it is that we change the barrier crime law. I have spent countless hours and days working with other addicts who trying to find their pathway into recovery. The frontlines are thin because the people whom society deemed unworthy because of some past mistakes cannot work in the field that they could do the greatest good. I did not know when I received my sentence in 1990 for distribution of crack cocaine. I would be serving a life time sentence. Luck for me I don’t have a barrier crime, yet today after getting my GED, going to college and graduating with honors. I still can live in certain areas or have certain jobs. I went from the crack house to the White House and still that not enough for Virginia to forgive me of my past mistakes. We need more people who has made a deep commitment to change to share their experiences with others who are suffering!!

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

Comments Document

Dear Chairperson Shin and Subcommittee Members: Thank you for hearing testimony on House Bill 581 relating to the plight of child sex trafficking victims within the state. Shared Hope International is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing, restoring, and bringing justice to survivors of child and youth sex trafficking. Shared Hope has been working in Virginia, across the country, and throughout the globe for over 20 years to guide and support appropriate responses to protect survivors, hold offenders to account, and ultimately prevent the crime entirely. Thirteen years ago, we launched the State Report Card project to assess the status of state’s laws and drive legislative progress. Despite its progress on addressing this issue, Virginia received an ‘F’ in 2023, scoring a 48 out of 100. House Bill 581 (“HB 581”), if passed, would require attorneys for the Commonwealth to establish multidisciplinary human trafficking response teams that would (i) discuss implementation of protocols and policies; (ii) establish and review guidelines for the community's response to various forms of human trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking; and (iii) review protocols for the trauma-informed, victim-centered collection, preservation, and secure storage of evidence from physical evidence recovery kit examinations, among other things. Collaborative, multidisciplinary groups (“MDTs”) addressing human trafficking have become essential in the national fight against human trafficking and the provision of necessary services and resources to survivors. This response model, which includes various disciplines working collaboratively, is encouraged by the U.S. Department of Justice and is recognized worldwide as a best practice in the anti-trafficking field. Through MDTs, law enforcement, child welfare, service providers, advocates, other professionals, as well as the child and their family can work collaboratively to prioritize the wellbeing of the survivor and provide trauma-informed support and services. Survivors of child sex trafficking often have complex needs that cannot be addressed by a single agency or service provider; instead, survivors need support from a number of service providers addressing various needs, including physical health, mental health, reproductive health, malnutrition, substance use, and self-destructive behaviors. While some of their needs are shared by other children who have experienced abuse or trauma, it is important that child sex trafficking victims not only receive a broad array of treatment but that treatment is specialized to the unique trauma associated with commercial sexual exploitation. An MDT response provides a comprehensive, coordinated effort that creates increased capacity to meet a myriad of needs through a specialized service response. Additionally, this increased capacity to meet survivor’s needs will support law enforcement and prosecutors’ ability to hold offenders accountable by increasing a survivor’s capacity and ability to participate in the criminal legal process. Therefore, state law should mandate a survivor-centered MDT response be utilized for child sex trafficking cases. We are grateful for the Committee’s dedication to this issue and respectfully ask for your support.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

To allow the men an wemon to come home with their finds and fees paid. Will allow them to start fresh without that weight on them.

I am a member of Valley Justice Coalition and strongly support this bill. I have personally tried to help those incarcerated arrange to pay their fines and fees with their hard work within the facilities. Some localities accepted their proposal while other localities would not. There needs to be consistency in this honest attempt to pay their financial penalties. Please vote YES for HB614. Thank you.

Richmond has become one of the most unaffordable states in the country to rent, only state action can keep rents down.

I support this bill because of the soaring prices for rent. Please vote YES!

Vote YES on SB366/HB721! This bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. -Lakevia Randolph Burrell

In my work at Peninsula Agency on Aging, I often hear from older adults who are struggling to pay rent on their fixed incomes, only to be faced with a massive rent hike as housing costs go up across the region. Rent gouging is leading to housing insecurity and homelessness for far too many already-vulnerable citizens across our state. SB366/HB721 puts in place reasonable limits that protect renters. As a voter, a person of faith, and a resident invested in my community, I support this bill, and I ask that you vote yes on this bill when it comes before you. Thank you.

Vote YES on SB366! This bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. -Vivian Daniels

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I know you are aware of the plight of Virginians who constantly deal with the soaring cost of housing in the Commonwealth. All one must do is listen to the local news to realize the seriousness of the problems surrounding affordable housing, especially if one is in a low economic status. SB 366/HB721 provides the necessary steps to ensure rent stabilization. It is imperative for localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions. Likewise, localities should also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance, at their discretion. For those claiming the status of Evangelical (Black or White), remember these admonishments as this is not about the separation of Church and State but is how the Christian is to demonstrate the love and loyalty to YAHWEH. Proverbs 19:17 says, “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and He will reward them for what they have done.” Deuteronomy 15:11 says “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore, I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land. Kind Regards, Reverend Carol A. Graham-Lee (CMSgt, USAF, retired)

Hello, my name is Carlos Hunter and I live in Hampton Virginia, 91st district. I thank you for allowing me to discuss Senate Bill 366/HB721 with you. I am writing to express my strong support for SB 366/HB721, which aims to tackle the issue of rent gouging in Virginia. I am deeply concerned about the rising rent prices in our state, this bill presents a crucial opportunity to protect tenants and ensure affordable housing for all. SB 366/HB721 proposes empowering localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, which would establish reasonable limits on rent increases. Specifically, the bill suggests tying rent increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a maximum of 7%, whichever is less. I believe this approach not only safeguards tenants from excessive rent hikes but also provides landlords with a fair and predictable framework for managing their properties. Furthermore, SB 366/HB721 allows localities to establish civil penalties for non-compliance, ensuring accountability and enforcement of these provisions. By providing tools for local governments to address rent gouging, this bill promotes stability in our housing market and fosters healthier communities. Housing is a fundamental human right, and it is imperative that we take proactive measures to address the affordability crisis facing many Virginians. SB 366/HB721 represents a significant step towards achieving this goal by striking a balance between the interests of tenants and landlords. I urge you to support SB 366/HB721 and to advocate for its passage in the legislature. Your commitment to addressing rent gouging will not only benefit countless individuals and families struggling to afford housing but also contribute to building a more equitable and prosperous future for our state. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Please vote yes to SB 366/HB721 and to work together to ensure that all Virginians have access to safe, stable, and affordable housing. Respectfully, Carlos Hunter USN Retired

In a time of slow growth and an uncertain political future, this bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. Many Virginia families have yet to recover from Covid pandemic and yet are faced with higher cost of living in all areas. They can try to economize on food but living quarters are a different matter. Being unable to find or afford housing can break a family. I urge support of this bill. Eileen Engel

Hello!My name is Natela and I been struggling for so long finding affordable housing in Fairfax County,Virginia.I am 58 years old female who have a very low income.I contacted more then 500 places trying to find one bedroom apartment or private basement and all this places asking for income 3-3.5 times bigger then cost of apartment.Making any person who is trying to rent one bedroom apartment in Fairfax county need to make around 5-6000 dollars per month.How many percent of people having this high salary jobs?I DON’T. I’m making now 12.00 dollars per hour.This amount of money disqualified me from any housing I applied.My question to HUD and all other housing authorities WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME??????? WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SURVIVE LIVING IN FAIRFAX AREA?HOUSING PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL!GROCERY PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL! ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS ARE CLOSED.ALL WAITING LISTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CLOSED TO. I BET YOU ALL JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT US!

Comments Document

We have all heard the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” HB 721 is a perfect example of that definition! Rent control policies across the country have proven to be an absolute failure. No jurisdiction that has adopted rent control policies has succeeded in keeping housing affordable. Further, not a single city which implemented rent control has seen an increase in housing availability or an increase in the quality of housing. It has not worked in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York or St. Paul, MN. One only needs to do a quick google search of "rent control and St. Paul" to see how devastating rent control has been to the construction of more rental housing in that city. According to HUD’s count (https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/), St. Paul’s apartment construction permits fell 48% after rent control passed in 2021, and that 48% is only after the city went back and revised their ordinance to exempt new construction for 20 years. We can also look at suburban Maryland to see exactly what will happen to VA if rent control is allowed to pass. Rental housing investment in Prince George’s County has ground to a halt in the past year in response to the County’s temporary rent control law and uncertainty over the County Council’s consideration of a permanent ordinance. In Montgomery County, longtime investors have sounded the alarm about the dangers of the recently passed rent control ordinance, arguing it will hamstring the County’s ability to expand its tax base and attract new businesses. Lastly, Takoma Park has had rent control in place since 1981. According to a city-commissioned report published in 2017, no new multifamily rental properties have been constructed since rent control passed. In summary: • Has rent control in any city made housing more affordable? NO! • Has rent control in any city made housing more available? NO! • Has rent control in any city lead to better quality housing? NO! Let’s avoid repeating the mistakes of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, St. Paul and suburban Maryland. Vote NO on HB 721! (Attachment is a graph from HUD data of building permits in St. Paul illustrating what happened after Rent Control passed in St. Paul.)

Comments Document

The attached PDF is being submitted by African Communities Together in support of the passage of H.B. 721. All across the nation, renters have made it clear: the rent is too high and Virginia is unfortunately no exception. Twenty-two percent of Virginia renters fall within income ranges below 30% AMI and can therefore only afford to pay $855/month in rent without becoming housing cost burdened. Fair market rate one bedroom apartments in Virginia cost on average $1,203/month, putting our most vulnerable renters at a deficit of $348 each month. That’s $348 that could be spent on food, clothing, medical expenses, and other necessities. To put this into further context, the hourly wage needed to afford the average one bedroom apartment in Virginia is $23.13. Here is a list of a few workers who make less than that: service workers, teaching assistants, nursing assistants, security guards, maintenance workers, accounting clerks, home health aides. The list goes on and we must do something now to protect all these vital members of our community who are in constant threat of displacement because they can no longer afford to live here. House Bill 721 addresses these issues by giving localities the power to implement rent control and prevent the displacement of working class families from the communities they have made home. Please note, the bill does not force localities to pass rent control ordinances, but simply gives them the option to do so when in the best interest of their residents. Some opponents to the bill argue that rent control negatively affects housing supply. However, studies show that in jurisdictions where rent control has been implemented, there has been no statistically relevant effect on supply. Conversely, lack of rent control has also not been shown to increase housing supply. Additionally, economists have pointed to the economic benefits of rent control, as it prevents evictions and homelessness thereby reducing government spending on related systems. We must also acknowledge that rent control is not a new concept, nor is it one we should shy away from. Homeowners have their own version of rent control through fixed 30-year mortgages, and we encourage and applaud homeownership yet ignore the needs of renters who wish to have a similar level of financial security. Housing is a human right, and it is time that our laws reflect that, which is why I sincerely hope you will join us in supporting the passage of HB721. Thank you for your consideration.

HB721 is a strong step in the right direction to address the housing crisis in Virginia. To be clear, the affordability of housing in Virginia is a major facet of this complicated crisis, and protecting Virginia tenants from the practice of rent-gouging is critical to maintaining the state's affordable housing stock. In the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commissions 2020 review of Affordable Housing in Virginia it was found that in 2019 (Pre-COVID-19) 29% of Virginia households were housing cost-burdened (meaning they spent at least 30% of their income on housing expenses) with half of cost-burdened Virginians spending 50% of their income on housing. According to the JLARC review, "approximately 44 percent of renting households are cost burdened compared with 21 percent of owning households." These JLARC findings should emphasize how there is an urgent need to address how almost ONE THIRD of Virginians have financial stress imposed upon themselves in order to keep a roof over their heads. Individuals and families are regularly forced to make painful prioritizations of one basic need over the other (such as food over medication) because their rent costs 50% of their income. Despite this growing crisis, there are Property Management Companies and Private Landlords - a growing number of which are LLCs, private equity firms, and aggregators from out-of-state - that seek to exploit the times by extracting larger and larger quantities of rent from Virginians who are already struggling to survive in the midst of this housing crisis. Hopefully the testimony from today will have highlighted some of the ways in which people's lives can be derailed by exploitative corporate tactics, like rent-gouging. Virginia tenants who come into conflict with these entities over issues like rent-gouging are frequently bullied into either submission or eviction purely because of the amount of legal resources, time, and bodies that are available to these corporations, and typically unavailable to tenants especially those who are low-income. HB721 is vital for the preservation of Virginia's affordable housing stock in that it will preserve existing affordable rental rates and critically prevent and punish corporations that try to exploit the most vulnerable Virginians via rent-gouging. In the midst of this state-wide housing crisis I implore you, our elected leaders, to vote for and advocate strongly in favor of HB721 which will protect Virginia tenants right to affordable housing. If you are not convinced, I highly recommend you to revisit the testimony of your constituents and other documented cases of rent-gouging. Truly it is a vile business tactic that only services the greed of out-of-state corporations, and devastates the lives of your neighbors.

ChamberRVA opposes HB 721. Limiting rent increases to escalation in the Consumer Price Increase is far too tight a limitation. and does not account for the many, varied, individual circumstances of a landlord and tenant. At this low rate of inflation, this really is not an anti-gouging provision that deals with very large rent increases; it's rent control. In other areas of the country, such rent control has had the adverse impact of decreasing the availability of housing. Given the shortage of affordable housing, this is not a result Virginia should use.

The Goldwater Institute engages on housing and property rights issues nationwide. HB721 and similar rent control measures fail to solve the underlying supply issues facing our housing market and can even raise market prices in some scenarios. Many economists and policy analysts have studied rent control policies, and the verdict is clear: these policies disincentivize development of new housing supply and incentivize the conversion of rental units into owner occupied units, which exacerbates the true pricing problem this legislation purportedly hopes to solve. For more information on how rent control policies negatively impact housing markets, please consult the Goldwater Institute paper examining this issue at the following link: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/rentcontrol/ Instead of misguided rent-control policies, the legislature should turn its focus to market-oriented solutions that expand housing supply. These solutions include: removing (or reforming) minimum lot size and density requirements; restoring the right of property owners to build duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned lots; streamlining the permitting process and prohibiting the use of vague or ambiguous design requirements; legalizing ADU's on single-family residential lots; and allowing by-right multi-family development on commercially zoned land. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of policy tools at your disposal, but each of these policies would represent progress toward truly alleviating the housing crisis in Virginia. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Allow the free market to function as designed! Oppose bill HB 721. If there is evidence of rent gouging from a housing provider, then focus on that party, not the whole industry.

My name is Sue Frankel Streit and I teach English as a Second Language in Louisa. Over the last few years I have seen rent prices in both apartments and trailers climb steeply in the county, just as they have in much of the rest of the county. But on top of inflation, some landlords, especially trailer park absentee landlords, are engaging in price gouging. This is bad for the community, as hard-working people whose children attend our schools are being forced out to leave even the cheapest housing available. Please help us maintain affordable housing!

Complex owners excessively increase the rent from 2022, from $200 and more each year when renewing the contract, this figure is excessive, if this continues, housing in Virginia will no longer be insurable for our working class communities of color, we urgently need a rent stabilization in Virginia. Because the problems do not even ensure that we have optimally maintained homes, they only seek to increase their bank accounts regardless of the crisis that their tenants are going through. Please Vote YES HB721.

This bill, HB 721, imposes rent control, which economists say is bad. It punishes landlords for inflation, since the ordinances it would allow local governments to enact would limit rent increases to the LESSER of inflation, or 7 percent. So if the inflation rate is over 10 percent, the ordinance would not allow any increase over 7 percent, even if the landlord's costs are going up over 10 percent, and the tenants' wages are going up over 10 percent. That's unfair. Raising rent by the same amount as inflation to keep up with costs is not "gouging." Almost all economists think rent control is a bad idea: In a 1992 poll, 93% of them agreed that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. The Wall Street Journal said, "If there’s any consensus in economics, it’s that rent control achieves the opposite of its intended goal. It leads to housing shortages by discouraging new development and maintenance of existing properties." Reason Magazine says "rent control has a history of constricting the supply of rental housing and reducing housing quality.” Rent control reduces rental housing's value, shrinking the property tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. "Researchers at the University of Southern California said rent control hurt property values in St. Paul, Minn. by $1.6 billion," reported Market Watch. Similar past legislation to allow local rent control ordinances failed to advance not just in this House, but also in a committee of the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2023. A ranking progressive member of the committee, who is now its chair, worried “that the proposal could keep landlords from paying for maintenance needs or changes. ‘I’m sympathetic, I have a lot of constituents, including some who spoke about the high cost of housing, and I’ve got a lot rental housing in my district,’ Sen. Ebbin said…'But I’m wondering if we’re going to limit them to consumer price index, if you have a apartment complex, particularly a large one that needs some kind of major renovations or wants to upgrade, that you’re really kind of handcuffing them.'" This is a concern shared by both liberal and conservative economists. As the liberal Brookings Institution notes, “Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can’t recoup these investment by raising rents." When landlords can’t raise rents to pay for repairs and renovations, they may let buildings decay. After New York limited rent increases to pay for major capital improvements to 2 percent, landlords cut back on improvements. A survey of rent-stabilized landlords found that when rent increases were curbed, "Three out of four reported cutting back on essential building-wide repairs, such as a roof or boiler replacement, since the rent law passed. Nearly 90 percent said they had forgone kitchen or bathroom renovations. Just over half decided against revamping their buildings’ security systems to include cameras or video intercoms or adding storage lockers for deliveries to thwart porch pirates. Efficiency upgrades have also been pushed to the back burner. Over 40 percent of respondents said they would not replace lighting with LED fixtures that use 90 percent less energy — a budget saver for tenants. A quarter said they opted against installing fuel computers, which better regulate heat and hot water systems and reduce a building’s energy consumption"

Hb768 Vote yes. Children shouldn't be subjected to having to testify in front of an abuser

Comments Document

Attached is testimony in support of HB 768 on Behalf of Shared Hope International, a non-profit organization that brings justice for victims of child sex trafficking.

Comments Document

VCAHT supports HB768 as it will help reduce the retraumatization of children in confronting those who have exploited them. VCAHT would support the expansion of this relief to adult victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking as well, as the protective benefits that CCTV testimony offers most certainly extend to trauma survivors of all ages. As a clinical psychologist that specializes in working with children and adolescents I completely support removing all barriers that would prevent any minor under the age of 18 from accessing the opportunity to testify without needing to be in the same room as their abuser. It is my professional opinion that there should be no threshold necessary for any child to pass in order to access this form or testimony if it is desired. The chances of a child or adolescent becoming destabilized and derailed in their recovery are significantly increased by the need to be in the presence of their abuser as well as a courtroom full of others. Despite our best intentions, the need for retelling the details of their abuse in such a setting often adds to the shame and embarrassment felt by the victim and can actually lead to developmental regression as a means of coping. This can delay the progress of therapeutic interventions as well as increasing the common yet excruciating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder like panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, and increased dissociation. Another less obvious factor to consider is that victims of abuse often develop what is referred to as a Trauma Bond. Even in cases where the child did not previously have a relationship with their abuser, a common reaction to being abused is the development of a strong bond with the abuser, particularly when there is a well-established power differential in the relationship (like an adult has over a child.) Deconstructing this powerful bond during the process of therapy is a long-term process which can easily be interrupted by re-exposure to the abuser. Feelings of guilt regarding the harm the testimony may cause to the abuser are common as is the potential for rekindled feelings of closeness and affection towards their abuser. The potential for reintroducing these confusing but powerful feelings for a child who is working hard to break free from such a powerful Trauma Bond can be devastating, if they are even able to bring themselves to testify at all, which is another risk. The likelihood of this delaying or derailing their recovery process is high and such a consequence is unacceptable. Reducing the need for a child of any age to endure unnecessary re-exposure to their abuser is the most humane decision and I wholeheartedly support this bill as written.

In Favor of Delegate Delaney's HB 768: Comments of the Mother of the Child Victim My daughter, AZ, was a victim of sexual abuse from ages 7-10 years old. Her father, Jose Noe Quintanilla, was found guilty of 3 counts of object sexual penetration and one count of rape. I am writing this statement to express my gratefulness for my daughter’s ability to use closed-circuit television (CCTV) while testifying during the criminal trial, and to advocate in support of more children being able to testify via CCTV in Virginia. My daughter was traumatized from the abuse and had nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks and often thought about the abuse. She suffered from suicidal thoughts regularly. During the trial, and at the time she had to testify, she also lived in an intense fear her dad was going to attack her for telling the truth and did not feel safe about talking about the abuse or testifying in court. As her mother, it pained me and has caused me great stress to see my daughter suffering, and to know it will affect her the rest of her life. My greatest concerns were AZ’s future and getting her through the trial with the least amount of trauma. My daughter was told by the prosecutor’s office she needed to testify in open court. For my daughter, this meant she had to be able to be questioned like an adult about graphic and traumatizing sexual acts her father did to her in open court with her father only several yards away, and in front of others. This is a frightening situation for any child. My daughter was later approved to testify through CCTV. Being able to testify through CCTV helped AZ get through testifying, and has kept the traumatizing impacts of the trial from being too much for her. If she had to testify in front of her father, she may have been unable to speak about the abuse in the courtroom, and would be much more traumatized. Additionally, her father became emotional during her testimony, and if she had to testify only a few yards away from him, his emotional behavior would have affected her ability to testify. Using CCTV gave my daughter the ability to stand up for herself and tell her story in a way that empowers children who have been abused. The Virginia Victims Bill of Rights states “In recognition of the Commonwealth's concern for the victims and witnesses of crime, it is the purpose of [the Victims Bill of Rights] to ensure that the full impact of crime is brought to the attention of the courts of the Commonwealth; that crime victims and witnesses are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity...” (§19.2-11.01 (A)). Allowing children to use CCTV to testify helps to ensure the full impact of crimes are brought to the attention of courts. All children should have access to this victims’ right if it is needed to avoid their intimidation, and unnecessary mental injury and harm. Sexual abuse is traumatizing enough, and children who experience this type of abuse can already have a hard road to recovery. All children should have access to CCTV, especially if a mental health professional says it could cause injury, instead of children having to get to the point of a severe mental condition to qualify. Thank you for your time and consideration for amendments to the law that will allow more children to testify via CCTV in Virginia; to help children testify better to expose the full impact of crimes; and support the safety, protection, mental health, and wellbeing of all children.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

Comments Document

We urge the Committee to support HB 824. Written testimony in support of the bill is attached.

I am in support of the second look bill, the people who have turned their lives around deserve an opportunity to show they are changed and be productive tax paying members of society. The money that is spent on housing those people could be spent on much better things than the DOc the money could go towards schools or other necessary programs. Some people have been in for 25 plus years, no infraction’s and have changed their lives, gone to school, got trades . Not everyone is eligible to get a second look and it is only for the ones who prove and show they would make good members of society. The bill allows a judge to determine if they deserve a second chance.

I oppose this bill.

I fully support those bills.

I fully support those bills.

Why is this being submitted? Do we not have laws, codes, and we are already drowning in? Stop just stop it, we have appeals, we have sentencing guidelines. Why are we adding yet more. We have parole, maybe we should work on what we have already and stop bogging the American People down with more rules, more laws, more codes!!

I support this bill I believe in 2nd chances

I OPPOSE this bill. I agree with the comments against this bill posted by Baer and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Please vote NO on HB834. It's bad for victims, and will make our state less safe.

Do not support HB834. Virginia citizens do NOT need more criminals put back on the streets. In recent years, crime has been increasing. It doesn't even feel safe to go to my local Walmart anymore. Do you wish to add to the millions of potential criminals pouring over our open southern U.S. border? Virginia is not a Monopoly game where serious offenders can pick a "get out of jail free" card!

We need this bill to pass to bring family members home. They have served more than enough time, let’s get this bill passed.

I Nicole Spratley support this bill for second chances! Being our love ones home. There’s inmates that’s are very remorseful and made such a poor decision. They have grown, conquered, and established a new and sincere leadership to others and themselves. There are inmates that are ready to start a new life that have turned over a new leaf. There are inmates that is ready to out there all in starting a new life. Everyone is entitled to a second chance at life. There are inmates ready to prove that they can be better and also a better help on society. There are inmates that are doing dramatic times behind the walls of prison, who’s had cases and was giving extreme sentencing for not so violent crimes. There are inmates who had court appointed lawyers that didn’t even look over there clients case and did absolutely nothing to try and protect them in court. I Nicole Spratley support HB834 cousins!

I am in FAVOR of this bill, for the simple reason that Virginia incarcerates more people than the top ten industrialized nations combined. That is shameful and an abomination, and shows the CW of VA thinks it can incarcerate itself out of criminality.

Comments Document

Dear Chair Hope and House Appropriations Committee Members, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) urges you to oppose HB 834, a bill that would undermine Virginia’s drunk and drug-impaired driving law. Specifically, the legislation would allow convicted impaired drivers who cause a fatal crash to receive a “second look” after serving 15 years in a state correctional facility, and possibly granted early release. Reducing the sentences for impaired drivers who cause a fatal crash revictimizes victim survivors and undermines the severity of the preventable violent crime of drunk and drug-impaired driving. The crime of drunk and impaired driving has increased by double digits over the last three years of available data. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2021, 281 Virginians were killed in drunk driving crashes—a 19% increase from 2019. Most drunk and drug-impaired drivers who cause a fatal crash in Virginia would not be affected by this legislation because typically these offenders do not receive a sentence of more than 15 years. However, for the most abominable instances in which an impaired driver is sentenced to more than 15 years, HB 834 will reverse justice by granting an opportunity for early release. Granting early release to an offender who caused a fatal crash revictimizes victims and sends a very mixed message to Virginia residents of the potential consequences for drunk and drug-impaired driving. Every time someone makes the choice to get behind the wheel of a vehicle impaired, the danger and potential result is the same – loss of life. Drunk and drug-impaired driving is a completely preventable violent crime that requires stiff consequences to ensure impaired driving laws have teeth and ensure justice for victims and survivors. MADD urges you to oppose HB 834. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at bryna.clarkbraverman@madd.org or 410-964-5757 Ext 2453. Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of this important request. Sincerely, Bryna Clark-Braverman MADD Mid-Atlantic Regional Executive Director

I SUPPORT the bill. I do believe in an individual's capacity to change and rehabilitate over time. This piece of legislation if passed will look at the length of a person's sentence and allow for a more accurate assessment of their current character and the likelihood of successful reintegration into society based on their growth. No one is the same as they were years ago. I do believe this bill will reevaluate any individuals sentenced to disproportionately long sentences, particularly for offenses committed during their youth. Therefore allowing the courts to revisit some of these cases to rectify any perceived injustices and bring sentences in line with the severity of the crime.

I SUPPORT the bill. I do believe in an individual's capacity to change and rehabilitate over time. This piece of legislation will look at the length of a person's sentence and allow for a more accurate assessment of their current character and the likelihood of successful reintegration into society based on their growth. No one is the same as they were years ago. I do believe this bill will elevate some individuals who may have received disproportionately long sentences, particularly for offenses committed during their youth. Therefore allowing the courts to revisit some of these cases to rectify any perceived injustices and bring sentences in line with the severity of the crime. Allowing individuals the ability to go home where they need to be with their families and loved ones.

I fully support these bills HB45 HB179 HB 834

Please vote NO to HB834, which violates assurances made to victims in the past. It would allow serial killers and the worst murderers to be released, those who committed Class 1 felonies. When the death penalty was abolished, legislators said, don't worry, the worst killers will get life without parole instead. But now, those killers will eventually be released if they convince a judge they are sorry and have a relatively clean prison discipline record. This is one of those soft-on-crime policies that sends a bad message to criminals. Washington, DC has a milder version of this "second look" legislation. Washington DC's murder rate went up 36% in 2023, and carjackings doubled in 2023, due to its soft-on-crime policies, as journalists have reported: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/01/04/carjacking-rings-arrests-2023. Please don't bring those soft-on-crime policies like second-look to Virginia. HB834 is even worse than DC's second-look law because it applies to offenders regardless of age, unlike in DC, where offenders only get out if they committed their crime before they turned 25. And HB 834 is even worse than DC's soft-on-crime "second look" law because it doesn't require proof that an inmate “is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community” before the inmate can be released, as DC's law does. Even with that requirement, 28 of the first 135 offenders released under DC's law had been arrested again by the beginning of 2023, reported the Daily Caller (http://tinyurl.com/2a6cdm3y). The criteria for release need to be tightened up. Right now, almost all of the factors the bill tells judges to consider are the kind criminal defense lawyers cite for reduced sentences, and virtually none of them are the reasons courts give for imposing long sentences, like the need for deterrence or to make the penalty fit the crime. Overly indulgent criteria for release will harm public safety, if inmates are routinely released under this bill. DC's law already routinely releases inmates. The Washington Post reported last year that four-fifths of inmates seeking release under it were released (135 of 164 petitioners). The lobbyists pushing second-look legislation make false claims about inmates' recidivism rates after being released. As criminal-justice expert Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute pointed out in response to a lobbyist for this bill, "As you can see from this BJS recidivism report, nearly 80% of offenders aged 40-54 are rearrested at least once after their release from prison. For those aged 55-64, that number is 56.1%, and 40.1% for those aged 65 and over." See https://twitter.com/Rafa_Mangual/status/1747647647932887436 . Inmates frequently commit more crimes after being released from prison, even after they have served a decade or more in prison, so they remain dangerous. 57.5% of federal inmates imprisoned for violence for ten years or more were arrested again after being released. (See U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010," pg. 33 (Feb. 2022)). This law will also be very painful for victims of crime, when inmates who raped them or murdered their child petition for release. The suffering of rape victims due to these laws is chronicled by the Washington Post's Petula Dvorak in "This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/this-law-makes-her-explain-trauma-her-rape-every-few-years/).

I fully support HB179 I am also in full support of HB834. This bill is not proposing that individuals should not be held accountable for their mistakes. And it's not suggesting a get out of jail free card for everyone who commits a crime. It is about taking a second look into the sentences of people who have served a significant amount of time and who have proven their sincere growth and remorse for their mistakes. I believe that redemption, compassion and justice can all be possible. There are people who are currently incarcerated who would be so much more of a contribution to society and their families if given the opportunity to have their sentence modified.

I support this bill

Comments Document

2/1/2004 To the legislators of Virginia. Recently our loved one, to some a friend, enlighten us about Second Look Legislation that will come up again in the 2023/2024 General Assembly. He requested that we contact our legislators and share his thoughts as we join the fight in support of criminal justice reform, and we're urging you all to join the fight, especially the"Republican Led House." Thank you all in advance for your time and attention in this matter. Sincerely Yours. Johnnie L. Wood #1014755 Shanita S. Hatcher Barbara A. Garrett Regina Daughtery C.C. Don Scott Marcus Simon Leslie Adams Vivian Watts Robert Bell Terry Kilgore James Leftwich Patrick Hope Jeffrey Campbell Margaret Ransom Date, April 24, 2023 Johnnie L. Wood #1014755 Greensville Correctional Center 901 Correction Way Jarratt, Virginia. 23870 Virginia Second Look Legislation will come up again in the "2023 General Assembly." If passed, everyone who has been incarcerated for [15 years or more] Second Look will allow for you to petition the court and have a judge resentence you according to the merits of your sentencing, behavior, or rehabilitation measures. ( All victims will still reserve the right to speak if they'd like.) Last year a Second Look Bill was passed by the Democrat controlled Senate, but was killed in the Republican controlled House. All Bills Must Pass Both The HOUSE And The SENATE To Become Law. Contact the Virginia General Assembly and [URGE SUPPORT] for the 2023 version of the "Second Look Bill". At 1000 Bank Street, Richmond, Virginia. 23219. People, this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, this is an [opportunity to be on the right side of criminal justice reform,] by giving Judges the authority to resentence incarcerated People who have satisfied [ 15 years or more of there original sentence according to the merits of your sentencing, behavior, or rehabilitation measures]. Also, the Second Look Bill could provide a remedy for the People who was sentence outside of there guidelines and are serving inflated sentences. Also, you have the [Post Fishback People Who's with out a remedy. In the year " 2000," the Supreme Court ruling in Fishback v. Commonwealth, making it a requirement to instruct juror's that parole is abolished in Virginia. Democrats and Republicans have an obligation to the People, that our justice system is fair an just to the People it represents, so let's not put off until tomorrow what you can fix today. Virginia People some are serving inflated sentences, that calls for reform. Virginia legislature's are [elected by the People to represent the People not there own special interest.] We the People have family members incarcerated, many are serving lengthy and (Some time unfair sentences). We call on our legislature's to give the Judges authority to correct and resentence them . We also strongly urge Republican led House to support the Second Look Bill. Thank you all in advance for your time and attention in this matter. . Sincerely Yours. Shanita S. Hatcher Barbara A. Garrett Regina Daughter C.C. Virginia General Assembly 1000 Bank Street, Richmond, Virginia. 23219 #1 Joseph D. Morrissey #2 Don't Scott (804-698-1080) #3 Marcus Simon (804-698-1053 #4 Leslie Adams (804-698-1016) #5 Peter Dujardin (757-247-4749)

I support this bill. It will help alot of inmates who deserves another chance. Never the less., families and love ones

I fully support this bill

My brother is Antonio Townsend. He is currently incarcerated in Greenville Correctional Facility. He was sentenced to life and he killed no one. He’s been incarcerated since he was 19. Has served about 25 years now. It’s time for him to come home. He has daughters that he missed raising. He has grandchildren that he’s not able to see grow up. His mother passed away while he was incarcerated as well. This was his first time in trouble and he got life. It’s time for him to come home. We need him home. He has grown so much. He’s not that same immature and miss guided young man that made those mistakes. I need my brother home. Thank you for your time.

I suppose this bill

Please vote no on the bill HB834, which would allow serial killers and serial rapists to be released after 15 years. It would cause victims of crime (like rape victims and the families of murder victims) to relive their trauma again and again, as "second-look" legislation has done to victims elsewhere, such as in Washington, DC (which has a less radical version of HB834, that only applies to inmates who committed their crimes below age 25). Petula Dvorak has written about how bills like this traumatize victims over and over again in the Washington Post, in "This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years." HB834 would increase the violent crime rate, and lobbyists for the bill have made grossly inaccurate claims about recidivism and re-offense rates by released inmates, as Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out: https://archive.is/hR911 . HB834 would result in many violent criminals being released, and many would go on to be arrested again. Most of the inmates released under Washington, DC's second-look law are murderers, and the Daily Caller reported last year that 28 of the first 135 inmates released under it had already been arrested again -- even though Washington, DC, unlike HB 834, only allows an inmate to be released if a judge specifically finds an inmate “is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community.” The comments of Pack and Renee posted earlier convincingly explain why HB834 is based on false premises and would increase the crime rate and endanger public safety.

I support these two bills HB834 and HB45 because A lot of times crimes are a reaction and not an action when a trauma has experienced and they are not likely to repeat the crime... A second chance matters in these cases and would take a huge burden off of the tax payer and families. Look at what they have done since and send the ones home who have shown us that they are rehabilitated and let's rebuild our families and community's... Kind regards, Cyndi Harris

Please pass bill HB834. Thank you

Part2 Good Afternoon again. This is a continuation the total of 22 years is 264 months of doing same routine with getting into trouble We are very proud of our love one. He has held a job since security level dropped 2006. He worked all while he was attending mandatory and non- mandatory classes. He was elected to be spokesman for his position. We have supported him because first he was trying to help himself. But also we have helped him with 4000 dollars in 25 dollar increments. None of that money is returned to our pockets nor to the community. His children are included in the 103,000 children are impacted by an incarcerated parent. Give my son and all other men women who have demonstrated a change in their life. Thank you. Lorrene Crowell Newport News

HB834, which would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years, should be rejected because the lobbyists pushing it have made false claims about the very real risk that the inmates released under it will reoffend and commit more crimes. That is discussed in an article found at this link: https://archive.is/hR911 .74.5% of state prisoners released in 2008 at age 40 or above were subsequently arrested again by 2018, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. Yet Landsman, the lobbyist for FAMM, who has filed written testimony in support of this bill, has falsely claimed to the contrary to Washington legislators. As the comment of Curry below points out, "The lobbyists pushing second-look legislation make false claims about inmates' recidivism rates after being released. As criminal-justice expert Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute pointed out in response to a lobbyist for this bill, 'As you can see from this BJS recidivism report, nearly 80% of offenders aged 40-54 are rearrested at least once after their release from prison. For those aged 55-64, that number is 56.1%, and 40.1% for those aged 65 and over.' See https://twitter.com/Rafa_Mangual/status/1747647647932887436 . Inmate recidivism rates are substantial, even after they have served 10 or 15 years in prison, so they remain dangerous. 57.5% of federal inmates imprisoned for violence for ten years or more were arrested yet again after being released. (See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010, pg. 33 (Feb. 2022)). The fact that a judge gives an inmate a 'second look' and lets them out doesn't mean they won't reoffend. Washington, DC's second look law requires a finding that the inmate being released is not a danger to public safety, but many of the inmates released under it (most of whom are murderers) have been arrested again after being released. The Daily Caller reported that 20% of those released under Washington, DC's second look law had been arrested in the short time after their release. See James Lynch, 'Man Who Raped 3 Women And Forced Victims To Dig Their Own Graves Seeks Early Prison Release Under DC Law,' Daily Caller, February 1, 2023 (stating that 'The law has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested') (available at https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/01/sexual-assault-three-women-early-release-washington-dc/). Simply because someone is middle aged due to serving 15 years in prison does not keep them from being dangerous. Many notorious serial killers were still active in their 50s, like Peter Tobin and John Reginald Christie. Serial killer Albert Fish started killing at age 54, and Dorothea Puente started at age 53. Some murderers keep killing as senior citizens. At the age of 76, Albert Flick killed a woman, stabbing her at least 11 times while her twin sons watched. He had previously been imprisoned from 1979 to 2004 for killing his wife by stabbing her repeatedly in front of her daughter. Marceline Harvey was arrested for killing again at age 83, after two prior convictions in New York. Harvey was arrested after previously spending three decades in prison for killing one girlfriend, and before that, spending 20 years in prison for killing an earlier girlfriend. Twice, Harvey had been paroled and released after deliberately murdering a woman." HB 834 would increase the violent crime rate, as is explained at this link: https://archive.is/hR911

I am voting for this bill, because my son has been incarcerated for 28 years on a wrongfully conviction. And his Lawyers have sent Governor Youngkin a conditional pardon on behalf of my son Michael Wayne Crump and nothing has happen yet. So yes I will vote for this bill.

I have volunteered with RIHD, INC., for over 25 years and I am very proud of what our organization has accomplished, but there is still SO much more to be done. RIHD, INC., has always supported a fair and inclusive Second Look law in Virginia which is the main reason I wholeheartedly support HB 834, an "earned" second chance bill. Keep in mind the operative word is EARNED! There are many who believe punishment for those who have committed crimes should be swift and punitive, and there are certainly several types of crimes which would qualify for that. There are also many who will try to obfuscate the issues by intimating that ANY type of restorative justice would be viewed as being "soft on crime." Those types of statements serve to limit forward progress, not only in Virginia, but nationwide. Yet, there is NOT one among us who has NEVER had to ask for forgiveness. In closing, it is no secret that this country has a disproportionately high rate of incarceration which usually includes draconian and quite lengthy sentences. It is, therefore, imperative that our legislators become more proactive and do what is necessary to become an example of ways to incarcerate and also to rehabilitate. As a constituent, I humbly implore you to be our voice for a better future. Please support and pass HB 834. I thank you for your time and consideration. Peace and Blessings. Respectfully submitted, Janet B. "Queen Nzinga" Taylor Board Member / RIHD, INC.

Comments Document

Attached is a written testimony in support HB 834. The testimony highlights the reason FAMM strongly supports HB 834.

Please vote against HB834. As the comment of Pack points out, HB834 "would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years. As Petula Dvorak recently reported in the Washington Post, these second-look bills are extremely traumatic for victims of violent crimes and their survivors. Rape victims are forced to relive their trauma again and again in the places that have adopted second-look laws, even when those laws are far less radical than HB834, which allows serial killers and serial rapists to be released, regardless of when they committed their crime. Survivors' anguish as a result of second-look laws is described in 'This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years' by Petula Dvorak (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/this-law-makes-her-explain-trauma-her-rape-every-few-years/). As is explained in Curry's comments, it would increase the violent crime rate and harm public safety, too, because offenders released under 'second look' laws have gone on to commit more violent crimes (and also because the Bureau of Justice Statistics says many inmates go on to commit more crimes after being released, even those released in their 40s and 50s) . As an article in the Washington Times points out, the factors the bill tells judges to consider about whether to release offenders are biased in favor of release, and don't even mention essential needs, like deterrence, even while listing every conceivable excuse a criminal defense lawyer would make for releasing an inmate. The bill doesn't even require a judge to issue a finding that 'that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community,' unlike Washington, DC's second-look provision, which is less extreme because it only releases offenders who committed their crimes below age 25. This bill has also been criticized in the Daily Press ('Democratic bill would effectively cap criminal sentences"' by Maggie Cleary). Sentences should be proportional to the crime, but HB834 would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years, which is far too short for such an awful crime. A mere 15 years for serial killing is just not proportional to the gravity of the offense. HB 834 does not list proportionality or retribution as factors in resentencing, even though the Supreme Court says those are legitimate factors to consider in sentencing. These flaws in HB 834 should all be fixed, and as long as they are present, you should vote NO on HB 834. HB834 should also be amended to exclude first degree murderers and murderers with second or successive convictions for second-degree murder, as the Senate second-look bill, SB427, does...serial rapists should also be excluded, as should all second-degree murderers. HB834 would increase the violent crime rate, as is explained in an article at this link: https://archive.is/hR911 "

I Deirdre Beard is in support of this bill.

Comments Document

Honorable Members of the Committee for Courts of Justice – Criminal. My name is Leonie May and the mother of Marvin May, an inmate at Buckingham Correction Center. I am also a Member of Virginia based nonprofit organization Resource and Information Help for the Disadvantaged (RIHD). I support Bill HB834 Petition for Modification of Sentences. This would be a good adjustment to the Virginia Justice System, I do believe everyone deserved a second chance in life and this bill would help with that process. Thank you, Leonie May 804 909-0677 Constituent of the Sen-13 -HSE-81

I'm standing for my son Praying for years for freedom. Never turning my back. I'm praying for this new bill to pass to give a second chance. We all are human. Family life changes after losing a love one. There are alot of inmates who deserve second chance. Peoples learn every day the right, the wrong. Give them another chance

Good Morning! I pray everyone be found safe and well. I come to you on behalf of HB834. It is in my opinion to have you take a look into each situation very carefully and without prejudice. We have (my family) have not only been cooperative but having paid out of pockets to help further my son’s education and obtain certificates degrees and become a reformed inmate but he has faced the unfortunate reality of losing his father, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Although, none of this is your fault or anyone else’s all we are saying is please help him and others who are struggling with this to come home safely and expeditiously..it is in my closing that I say thank you for taking out the time in considering my prayer! Thank you and God blessings to you ALWAYS

Vote against HB834, which would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years. As Petula Dvorak recently reported in the Washington Post, these second-look bills are extremely traumatic for victims of violent crimes and their survivors. Rape victims are forced to relive their trauma again and again in the places that have adopted second-look laws, even when those laws are far less radical than HB834, which allows serial killers and serial rapists to be released, regardless of when they committed their crime. Survivors' anguish as a result of second-look laws is described in "This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years" by Petula Dvorak (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/this-law-makes-her-explain-trauma-her-rape-every-few-years/). As is explained in Curry's comments, it would increase the violent crime rate and harm public safety, too, because offenders released under "second look" laws have gone on to commit more violent crimes (and also because the Bureau of Justice Statistics says many inmates go on to commit more crimes after being released, even those released in their 40s and 50s) . As an article in the Washington Times points out, the factors the bill tells judges to consider about whether to release offenders are biased in favor of release, and don't even mention essential needs, like deterrence, even while listing every conceivable excuse a criminal defense lawyer would make for releasing an inmate. The bill doesn't even require a judge to issue a finding that "that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community," unlike Washington, DC's second-look provision, which is less extreme because it only releases offenders who committed their crimes below age 25. This bill has also been criticized in the Daily Press ("Democratic bill would effectively cap criminal sentences" by Maggie Cleary). Sentences should be proportional to the crime, but HB834 would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years, which is far too short for such an awful crime. A mere 15 years for serial killing is just not proportional to the gravity of the offense. HB 834 does not list proportionality or retribution as factors in resentencing, even though the Supreme Court says those are legitimate factors to consider in sentencing. These flaws in HB 834 should all be fixed, and as long as they are present, you should vote NO on HB 834. HB834 should also be amended to exclude first degree murderers and murderers with second or successive convictions for second-degree murder, as the Senate second-look bill, SB427, does. Indeed, serial rapists should also be excluded, as should all second-degree murderers. HB834 would increase the violent crime rate, as is explained in an article at this link: https://archive.is/hR911

This bill will really help others have a second chance at society and how this bill could help many families. This bill gives the inmates the courage and the influence of being able to prove that they have learned from their mistakes.

I Nicole Spratley is in support of this Bill! This Bill will change many inmates lives and their families. To give them a second chance at life and society. To reunite with families. For first timers that was giving a dramatic sentence to overcome a second chance. We all deserves a second chance at life for careless mistakes we have done. For the inmates that have grown and shown multiple gratitude of growth and remorse for there actions. For the inmates that have not just waisted there time doing nothing behind the walls of prison. For the inmates that have gotten there GED or diplomas. For the inmates that have gotten trades and learned how to accept and forgive! Giving these inmates a second chance of life is nothing short of a miracle for them to spend what may be some last days of family members that don’t have much longer on this earth. Nobody wants to find out that there mother or father or what’s been really going on there children don’t have long to live or has died while being incarcerated! I Nicole Spratley SUPPORT THIS BILL! BRING OUR DADS, MOMS, CHILDREN HOME FOR A SECOND CHANCE OF LIFE!!!

I Ms McCarthy accept this bill . Out love ones has been locked up for 15 plus years without getting in any trouble . I accept the second chance bill . Our love ones has learned and know how to be in society now . The second chance can give them the chance to be with their families , children’s, mother, father again . Our love ones deserve this second chance . God gave his life for us we can give a second chance to them .

This bill proposes to provide a second chance to individuals who may have been unjustly sentenced or have demonstrated significant growth, rehabilitation, and remorse during their time in prison. By allowing a review of cases and sentences, this bill offers an opportunity for justice to be served and for mistakes to be rectified. It acknowledges the potential for human error in our legal system and seeks to address any bias, systemic flaws, or excessive punishments that may have occurred. Moreover, this bill promotes the principles of compassion, fairness, and rehabilitation, recognizing that people have the capacity to change and reintegrate into society. By supporting a second look bill, we are advocating for a more compassionate and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation, redemption, and the potential for genuine transformation.

I Ms McCarthy accept this bill . Out love ones has been locked up for 15 plus years without getting in any trouble . I accept the second chance bill . Our love ones has learned and know how to be in society now . The second chance can give them the chance to be with their families , children’s, mother, father again . Our love ones deserve this second chance . God gave his life for us we can give a second chance to them .

I strongly urge the members of the Virginia Legislative Assembly to pass HB 834 Petition for modification of sentence; eligibility, procedures. The current state of prisons in Virginia is almost unworkable due to overcrowding and understaffing. This bill is one sensible and humane solution to that problem. Many of those currently incarcerated have served more than enough time for their crimes and have suffered harsh and unnecessarily long sentences that were enacted and imposed in the past more for political than rational reasons. As sentencing has changed and been modified over the years, those serving long sentences that have few to no charges while incarcerated and have taken advantage of all the programs offered in the prison system ought to be considered for release. Virginia’s budget cannot afford to keep locking up large numbers of people for long periods of time, especially when money is needed for education and healthcare. It would be far more practical to invest money in expanding re-entry programs and for providing more concrete support for those who have been released.

Please vote against HB834, which would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years. As Petula Dvorak recently reported in the Washington Post, these second-look bills are very traumatic for victims of violent crimes and their survivors. Rape victims are forced to relive their trauma again and again in jurisdictions that have adopted second-look laws, even when those laws are less radical than HB834, which allows serial killers and serial rapists to be released. Survivors' anguish as a result of second-look laws is described in "This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years" by Petula Dvorak (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/this-law-makes-her-explain-trauma-her-rape-every-few-years/). As is explained in Curry's comments, it would increase the violent crime rate and harm public safety, too, because offenders released under "second look" laws have gone on to commit more violent crimes (and also because the Bureau of Justice Statistics says many inmates go on to commit more crimes after being released, even those released in their 40s and 50s) . As an article in the Washington Times points out, the factors the bill tells judges to consider about whether to release offenders are biased in favor of release, and don't even mention essential needs, like deterrence, even while listing every conceivable excuse a criminal defense lawyer would make for releasing an inmate. The bill doesn't even require a judge to issue a finding that "that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community," unlike Washington, DC's second-look provision, which is less extreme because it only releases offenders who committed their crimes below age 25. This bill has also been criticized in the Daily Press ("Democratic bill would effectively cap criminal sentences"). Sentences should be proportional to the crime, but HB834 would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years, which is too short. HB 834 does not list proportionality or retribution as factors in resentencing, even though the courts say these are valid factors in sentencing. HB834 should also be amended to exclude first degree murderers and murderers with second or successive convictions for second-degree murder, as the Senate second-look bill, SB427, does. HB834 would increase the violent crime rate, as is explained in an article at this link: https://archive.is/lT4CL .

I would like for the committee to consider the the bill on the table today. So many individuals incarcerated are far removed from the people they were 10, 5 ,20 years ago.

I support HB834.. I know circumstances change and growth is part of that transition. When “WE” know BETTER..”WE” can” DO” and CHANGE ..

I Crystal Casey am in support of this bill. This bill proposes to provide a second chance to individuals who may have been unjustly sentenced or have demonstrated significant growth, rehabilitation, and remorse during their time in prison. By allowing a review of cases and sentences, this bill offers an opportunity for justice to be served and for mistakes to be rectified. It acknowledges the potential for human error in our legal system and seeks to address any bias, systemic flaws, or excessive punishments that may have occurred. Moreover, this bill promotes the principles of compassion, fairness, and rehabilitation, recognizing that people have the capacity to change and reintegrate into society.

I fully support HB45 and HB834 and pray you all will as well. These bills are "Earned" NOT a get out of jail free card! There are inmates who get up everyday and work hard and participate in programs to help with their rehabilitation. My husband has been incarcerated 7 years. He is not the same 20 year old first time offender in the system. He's matured and shown his rehabilitation throughout the years. He's earned all his certificates, as well as a college certificate he will apply upon release, holds a job, a mentor to other offenders, attends the church sessions and now is just taken up space because it's nothing more VADOC can offer him. His "violent" crime is completed his remaining 3 years he can earn on is for nonviolent offenses. They’re several more like him. He’s taking accountability and has grown from this experience. The passing of these bills can be an example of inmates to come that with hard work and true dedication to bettering themselves that they deserve a second chance. And that there are people out here who look at them as more than just another number. Please support these bills. -Machay Middleton

My brother deserves a second chance.

Good Morning I'm writing my comment in regards to HB834 I strongly support this bill as a tax payer znx registered voter in the city of norfolk, I pray that the House will pass this bill because it will be one of the resolutions to end mass incarceration in the state of Virginia. Thank you.

Second Look isn't a get out of prison free card, it's hope. Life in prison is difficult enough, but without hope it's impossible. Many of those incarcerated were teenagers at the time of their crime and are not the same person today, just like you. Restore hope and give second look a try. Thank you

I'm writing on behalf of my husband who is currently incarcerated in the VADOC. He is serving 31 years for essentially stealing a cellphone from someone when he was 19 years old back in 2004. He was sentenced to a 31 year Robbery charge, even though he never assaulted the guy he took the phone from. He is not the same person he was at age 19. As a 41 year old man who has reformed himself, he deserves to come home to his family now. I'm begging for this Second Chance bill to pass so I can see him before I die from stage 4 cancer. His parents are old and sickly and would like to see him before they die. He deserves a second chance! He will not come out and commit any more crimes. He just wants to be a part of society. Please grant our family that relief!!!!! Thank you Respectfully, Jacquee O

Honorable Members of the Committee for Courts of Justice - Criminal , My name is Lillie Branch-Kennedy, Founder of the Virginia based nonprofit Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and the Disenfranchised (RIHD, INC) assisting people directly impacted, families and communities affected by Virginia's criminal legal system with restorative practices. Our goal for is for a more safer and equitable society. RIHD, INC supports bill HB834 Petition for modification of a sentence; eligibility; procedures that would allow courts to reevaluate and amend sentencing after incarcerated persons serve a determined amount of time in prison and no longer pose a risk to the community. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Lillie Branch-Kennedy Founder Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised RIHD, INC. 1720 Mechanicsville Turnpike Richmond, Virginia 23223 Tel: (804) 426-4426 Email: lillie@rihd.org Website: www.rihd.org

I fully support HB45 and HB834 and I hope you all will as well. Both bills are "Earned" NOT a get out of jail free card! Crimes are committed, lengthy times are given. Age plays a factor in change, with maturity. My now 41 year old husband who has been incarcerated 23 years with 6 remaining is not the same 19 year old first time offender in the system. He's grown and shown his rehabilitation throughout the years. He's earned all his certificates, recieved his GED as well as a college certificate he will apply upon release, holds a job, a mentor to other offenders and now is just taken up space because it's nothing more VADOC can offer him. His "violent" crime is completed his remaining 11 years he can earn on is for nonviolent offenses a double stack use of firearm arm charge which he was given 3 years each as well as 5 years for possession of controlled substance. The prisons are overcrowded severly with more entering the system daily so why hold them longer if they've proven change throughout their incarceration? those who are eligible have release dates regardless so what will a few earned years early hurt? Nothing. It will free up space and save taxpayers money!

Hello my name is Ursula Ward and I am writing the committee to inform you that I am in support of HB834 Petition for modification of a sentence; eligibility; procedures that would provide people an “earned” second chance. I feel that this bill is needed to allow those that have served a significant amount of time and have done the work to rehabilitate themselves to become a trust worthy member of society. I believe there a those who deserve to prove to society that they are not who they where when committed the crime that caused them to become incarcerated. Please consider my support when deciding on this bill. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Ursula Ward

Provide a path of redemption for those who are working to change their lives. Support HB 834 ,we All deserve a second chance Thank you

My name is Clyde Boykins III and I represent RIHD, Inc. and Rich MindZ Community and I support bill HB834 that would provide people an earned second chance. I am a product of this bill of getting a second chance. I served 27 years in DOC and came home a rehabilitated man.And though it’s been tough, I have not given up. I am thankful for my second chance and I am out here doing the work in the community trying to save our youth and young adults from making the same mistakes I made. I’ve had a hard time with some things, e.g., employment. They say they will give you a second chance, but they make it very hard especially for the people who just want to come home and relish in being comfortable after a hard and honest day of work. This bill inspired me to work with organization's such as RIHD, Inc. and I now have created my own non-profit organization Rich MindZ Community. I’m out here in the community making a difference everyday and I wouldn’t be here in front of you today if I had not been given that second chance.

I support HB45 and HB77 and HB834 because I am a firm believer that not all law codes pertain to the actual crime of the person but sometimes it is the law code that they have no choice but to sentence the individual under and in that case, people are over sentenced in our state. Prisons and jails in Virginia are over populated and this is one of the reasons. My husband has been incarcerated for 10 years and has had no chance to have any incentive to do better. When the bill HB45 was supposed to go through before the budget ammendment was put into effect, a bunch of human beings were let down, both incarcerated and the families as well. DOC had people have their hopes up and then the governor shot all that down. Home plans, medical was all initiated just to have all that ripped away. Then came all the lawsuits and there are still alot of them going on as we speak and will continue. There have been overdoses and deaths and all kinds of foul things going on since this. When we had covid drugs were still getting inside of prisons yet there were no contact visits for almost 2 years and there was still a drug problem inside all facilities so where were the drugs coming from at that point? We need to help these men and women in a positive manner and maybe give them some initiative to be better and prosper inside those walls. An inmate is just a number in the state of Virginia it seems and honestly they are not treated as well as it is seems but they are humans. The only difference between them and people of the free world is that THEY GOT CAUGHT and some didn't. I have so much more I could say but I believe in second chances and I believe when one is sentenced they get over sentenced due to the nature of the law code and that crime only falls under that said law code but that does not mean the crime committed was as it seems in the public eye. Thanks for your time and I pray these guys and gals will have some better initiative to look forward to in 2024.

Comments Document

From: Former Mayor / Councilman W Howard Myers City of Petersburg, To: the Honorable Members of the Courts of Justice - Criminal meeting, I pray that you will support Delegate Cousins Legislation HB834, as it provides a dynamic opportunity for those who have swayed from their path and have had to choose an alternative while seeking a better life. That amongst those who have diligently served during their time to rehabilitate, as well as educate themselves in the process of their incarceration, deserve a second chance to be evaluated and considered for release as a returning citizen. Where many supportive programs exist throughout the Commonwealth and have been successful in the transition of prior returning citizens mitigating recidivism; stands clear that there is a path to rehabilitation and a loving community welcoming a family and friend home to a better life. Honorable Members Courts of Justice - Criminal, I ask of your support and sensitivity to those who have lost their way, who now desire after their institutional journey. 15 years to reverse the cycle of a reminiscent time, can be rewarding by providing a doorway back home. Sincerely, Councilman W Howard Myers

Greetings, I wanted to provide a writing from my husband Talib. He has currently served 23yrs of a 53yr sentence. He work one morning this month and sent me this. Thank you for taking the time to review it. The Benefit of Hindsight Equitable Sentencing and the Second Look Legislation go hand in hand. With certain crimes it is difficult to quantify exactly what an adequate and sufficient sentence would be. Especially since we can't see into the future. Some crimes are heinous in themselves and demand a harsh sentence at the outset. Crimes such as murder, it is hard to lay down a concrete foundation as to an adequate punishment would be for murder, as every one is different. If the standard is "a life for a life" then the Death Penalty should be reinstated and used appropriately. In the case of exorbitantly long sentences then this goal of "a life for a life" is achieved in a number of ways. There is a saying: "In prison you die a thousand deaths." This is to say that as an inmate there are a thousand things that break you little by little. There are far more inmates who have nobody left, nobody to call, nobody to hope to see again. For many of them it's just that people stopped answering the phone for them after too many years have gone by. It takes a rare type of fortitude on the behalf of a prisoners family and loved ones to be able to hold on to hope and be able to provide it as well. Many people can't handle that and find it easier to move on without a word. I can only speak for myself but I am positive that many would agree with my stance, as there are many people in my position right now. I would say that if the goal of my sentence in fact was to exact a "life for a life", the goal has been met. After serving 23 years, that impulsive, angry, uneducated kid and hopeless kid that came in here is long dead. He has been replaced by a man of Substance, Fortitude and Hope. I will say that it took about 10 years or so for me to come to the conclusion that something needed to change. And it took me a few more years to realize that what needed to change was ME. I had to change my entire world view and examine my place in it. It took me a few more years develop an affective plan to set my affairs in order and become the man I am today. I am now a Man with a lot to offer, firstly I have a household to take care of. Then I have a wealth of skills to offer the workforce and a vast vault of knowledge and experience that should not be locked away to be lost, it should be used to aid others. My aim is to ensure that the life that I took has meaning and at least a portion of the potential good that he may have given the world is restored. My story is unique in it's own right (as is everyone's) but not uncommon. With the benefit of hindsight, I believe that at the outset of my crime the sentence that was handed down to the kid who committed that crime was appropriate. But now 23 years later, that kid (and all his hangups and issues) are long resolved and gone. The Circumstances have changed, now a new person sits in his place. A Second Look would serve justice and a new Sentence would serve as Equitable. Talib

Please give our loved ones especially my son a chance to have his sentence modified give his sentence a sentence look please past his bill for my mother's sake she's 86 years old her son has 18 years left put them on parole for the rest of his sentence.

Please vote NO on HB834. As Petula Dvorak recently reported in the Washington Post, these second-look bills are terribly traumatic for victims of violent crimes and their survivors. Rape victims are forced to relive their trauma again and again in places that have adopted second-look laws, even when those laws are less radical than HB834. Ms. Dvorak chronicles such survivors' pain as a result of a second-look law in "This law makes her explain the trauma of her rape every few years ." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/25/this-law-makes-her-explain-trauma-her-rape-every-few-years/). As Clegg and Curry point out in their comments about this bill, it would increase the violent crime rate and harm public safety, too, since offenders released under "second look" laws have gone on to commit more violent crimes. The criteria the bill tells judges to consider about whether to release offenders are biased in favor of release, and don't even mention essential needs, like deterrence. The bill doesn't even require a judge to reach a firm conclusion that "that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community," unlike Washington, DC's second-look ordinance.

I support this bill and implore you to as well. " America is the land of the second chance - and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life" Quote from George W Bush! It is way past time to bring Virginia to a place that honors and embraces Second Chances, by giving those who have earned it, SECOND LOOK. Those who worked hard to improve themselves and become better human beings while paying their debt to society are asking for the chance to show their improvements and be considered for an earlier release from prison. It's really simple when you think about it, we should WANT those who meet and excel in the standards outlined in their rehabilitation to be reviewed and considered for possible early release. This is not a guarantee, it is a CHANCE. This country was built on that principle!

Dear Senator Kaine, I extend my sincere gratitude for considering my story. It is crucial for me to convey the depth of remorse and responsibility I feel for the actions that led to my incarceration. I am Andre gaddie , and I want to express, with utmost sincerity, that my plea for assistance in no way diminishes the acknowledgment of the profound impact my choices had on others' lives. In 2007 at the age of 17 I found myself entangled in a gang ,mob that resulted in significant legal consequences. . Despite the severity of my actions, I am compelled to emphasize that I take full accountability for the pain inflicted, recognizing the destruction caused that fateful night. As I serve a 58 year sentence, it is important for you to understand that my plea is not a plea for innocence but a plea for a chance at redemption and a second lease on life. I acknowledge the enormity of my wrongs, and I am acutely aware of the suffering endured by those affected. Throughout my 18+ years of incarceration, I have committed myself to personal transformation. I have actively participated in numerous rehabilitation programs and educational initiatives, culminating in the attainment of my GED and ministry licenses. Also generating a llc for a new life for gang members to educate them and properly share life stores and guidance .I have maintained an impeccable record, remaining infraction-free for the past 16 years. Prison, in an unexpected twist, became a catalyst for positive change in my life. It provided me with an opportunity to reflect, learn, and grow. I do not take lightly the gravity of my past actions, but I firmly believe that every individual deserves a chance at redemption and renewal. At the age of 35 I stand before you as a changed man, yearning for the prospect of reintegration into society as a productive citizen. My journey within the prison system has been marked by stability, employment, and various achievements, all indicative of my commitment to rehabilitation. I implore you, Senator Kaine, to consider supporting my plea for freedom and a second chance. I understand the complexities surrounding my case, but I believe in the transformative power of genuine remorse and sustained positive change. Your advocacy could be instrumental in affording me the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society once again and be with my wife and my child that I took on in this journey of life .Thank you for your time, and I earnestly hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Andre Gaddie Greensville correctional

I vote yes for the second chance!!!

Correction on bill number in previous comment HB834. VOTE YES to HB834.

My husband was sentenced to 38 active years after 35 of a 73 yr sentence was handed down as a 1st time offender. He has served 24 of those years with 19 infraction free. He started at a level 5/6 and worked his way down to a level 1 camp (although he had technically been classified a level one since 2004) he was unable to transition to one due to the amount of time and the VADOC policy. He has rehabilitated himself by getting his GED, taking college courses and getting certifications. He has a stable and solid home plan. He wants to mentor other young men to prevent them from going down the same path that leads to prison. He is very well respected by the administration and he's earned his second chance. I fully support this bill and believe that if given the opportunity to come home, he would be a great asset to the community. As data has shown lengthy prison sentences does not make the public safer and only does more harm. Vote YES to HB427

Our Prisons are filled with people who are over sentenced costing the State of Virginia as much as $50K per person per year—10x what we spend per pupil. Many have aged out of crime. One in seven people in Virginia prisons, 4,193 individuals, is serving a life sentence or a virtual life sentence. Since the 1970s, this number has increased by more than 90 percent. Currently, Virginia is ranked 13th for the number of people serving a life sentence. Everyone deserves a Second Chance, everyone deserves a Second Look. Please pass HB834.

Hello I'm on behalf of my fiance who has in the prison system of Virginia for over 20 years for a crime he did not comitt. Imagine how you would feel if you was found guilty of a crime you didn't comitt and have your life taken from you. He has been living in this nightmare all this time. He is not the man that a jury and others made him out to be. This man will help anyone that truly needs. He doesn't like to see anyone struggle. It a just awful that young men get the finger pointed at them for something that they pleaded with people they didn't do it . Only to be put in jail and left there . Deep in my heart I feel the city of Roanoke and Virginia failed him. Instead of proving he was innocent . They led people to believe he was guilty..He has gone up for review to be turned down. This man deserves to be free and live what life he has life as a free man. He had missed out on time sixth family, the possibility of having kids, and just enjoying the little things in life we take for granted. I really hope that this bill gets put into effect because there is a lot of men and women who deserves a second chance at life. In my fiances cases he should have never been convicted in the first place..Thank you

I oppose HB834 for the reasons given in opposition to the bill in the article, "Virginia bill would allow even serial killers to be released after 15 years," which is available at this link, https://archive.is/lT4CL . As explained there, HB834 would likely increase the crime rate.

I support the second Look. There are criteria that persons have to qualify in order to ask for another chance. They have to prove they have rehabilitated themselves . There are too many people incarcerated that deserve a second chance. I know first hand there are people locked up at barely 17 could not read nor write has spent 25 1/2 years and in that time has earned a GED, over 20 certifications, in their last semester in college, has held a job , and has had no major infractions while there. There are people that are just like this one and they all deserve a chance to be productive tax paying members of society. The money that is used for the people incarcerated could be used for schools. Please support this bill

I support HB834, my loved one has been incarcerated for over 20 years, he deserves a second chance to become a model citizen, he has taken so many self help programs wants to come home and do what is right for himself, his family and his community. He was only 19 when he was sentenced to life he is now 43 and has grown from the boy he was then to the man he is now. I think that everyone deserves the chance to show he/she has changed. I understand that not everyone deserves this chance, and that there should be stipulations in place for the ones that go up for a second chance but everyone should be able to be considered for that chance.

This bill would help my Loved One that is committed to his rehabilitation. He has completed the classes that he is able to and would like to do more but because of his excessive time can not prove further that he has been rehabilitated. When he was 18 now 35, what he did was wrong and he understands what it means to love and to bring peace into a situation. Please support this bill.

HB834 is a bad idea, as the public comments of Curry have already pointed out. But HB 834 would be OK if those released under it were limited to drug offenders. As it is written now, though, its passage would make the public less safe.

I object to HB 834 as explained in my earlier comment, which I am correcting to fix a typo. HB 834 is based on mistaken premises about recidivism rates and what sentences are extreme. It would allow any prison inmate -- even serial killers and mass bombers -- to seek release after 15 years by filing a petition. Supporters of the bill claim that the bill is about fixing "extreme" sentences. But there is nothing "extreme" about giving a premeditated murderer a sentence that exceeds 15 years -- much less a serial killer! If a court sentenced a serial killer to life, then the serial killer should serve life. The senate has a second look bill, SB 427, but unlike HB 834, it excludes premeditated murderers and inmates with multiple convictions for second degree murder. Why doesn't HB 834? It should! The lobbyists pushing second-look legislation make false claims about inmates' recidivism rates after being released. As criminal-justice expert Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute pointed out in response to a lobbyist for this bill, "As you can see from this BJS recidivism report, nearly 80% of offenders aged 40-54 are rearrested at least once after their release from prison. For those aged 55-64, that number is 56.1%, and 40.1% for those aged 65 and over." See https://twitter.com/Rafa_Mangual/status/1747647647932887436 . Inmate recidivism rates are substantial, even after they have served 10 or 15 years in prison, so they remain dangerous. 57.5% of federal inmates imprisoned for violence for ten years or more were arrested yet again after being released. (See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010, pg. 33 (Feb. 2022)). The fact that a judge gives an inmate a "second look" and lets them out doesn't mean they won't reoffend. Washington, DC's second look law requires a finding that the inmate being released is not a danger to public safety, but many of the inmates released under it (most of whom are murderers) have been arrested again after being released. The Daily Caller reports that 20% of those released under Washington, DC's second look law had been arrested in the short time after their release. See James Lynch, "Man Who Raped 3 Women And Forced Victims To Dig Their Own Graves Seeks Early Prison Release Under DC Law," Daily Caller, February 1, 2023 (stating that "The law has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested") (available at https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/01/sexual-assault-three-women-early-release-washington-dc/). Simply because someone is middle aged due to serving 15 years in prison does not keep them from being dangerous. Many notorious serial killers were still active in their 50s, like Peter Tobin and John Reginald Christie. Serial killer Albert Fish started killing at age 54, and Dorothea Puente started at age 53. Some murderers keep killing as seniors. At the age of 76, Albert Flick killed a woman, stabbing her at least 11 times while her twin sons watched. He had previously been imprisoned from 1979 to 2004 for killing his wife by stabbing her repeatedly in front of her daughter. Marceline Harvey was arrested for killing again at age 83, after two prior convictions in New York. Harvey was arrested after previously spending three decades in prison for killing one girlfriend, and before that, spending 20 years in prison for killing an earlier girlfriend. Twice, Harvey had been paroled and released after deliberately murdering a woman.

There are too many Virginians serving excessive sentences and this does not make us safer. People languish in prison for decades, regardless of how they change or grow, because our laws don’t give them a second chance. Extreme sentences devastate families and communities, but they hit communities of color the hardest. This bill will give people an opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and if they are found to have successfully rehabilitated themselves. When I think of excessive sentencing in Virginia, I think of my friend who was 19 years old. Also, he was living in poverty and being raised by a single mother with substance abuse. He got sentenced for 51 years for a crime where no one was hurt. He has been in prison since 2004 and has completed his GED, several programs, and has even been a teacher within the prison. He has been charge free for several years and currently resides in the honor pod. He is also a father to a daughter who is now grown. This bill would give him hope. We need hope behind bars. It will give individuals an incentive to rehabilitate which will directly make our prisons safer for both people behind bars and staff. As a victim of sexual assault and and domestic violence, I believe in redemption and second chances. Also, this bill still includes the victims in the process. I recognize there are people who re-offend, however we cannot put everyone in a box. We cannot punish ALL for the poor decisions of a few. It is not safe nor humane to keep individuals locked in cages for decades and decades without giving them an opportunity for redemption. Most importantly, this can reunite families and community members. VA needs a second look for ALL! Please support HB834/SB427.

I object to HB 834 because it is based on mistaken premises about recidivism rates and what sentences are extreme. It would allow any prison inmate -- even serial killers and mass bombers -- to seek release after 15 years by filing a petition. Supporters of the bill claim that the bill is about fixing "extreme" sentences. But there is nothing "extreme" about giving a premeditated murderer a sentence that exceeds 15 years -- much less a serial killer! If a court sentenced a serial killer to life, then the serial killer should serve life. The senate has a second look bill, SB 827, but unlike HB 834, it excludes premeditated murderers and inmates with multiple convictions for second degree murder. Why doesn't HB 834? It should! The lobbyists pushing second-look legislation make false claims about inmates' recidivism rates after being released. As criminal-justice expert Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute pointed out in response to a lobbyist for this bill, "As you can see from this BJS recidivism report, nearly 80% of offenders aged 40-54 are rearrested at least once after their release from prison. For those aged 55-64, that number is 56.1%, and 40.1% for those aged 65 and over." See https://twitter.com/Rafa_Mangual/status/1747647647932887436 . Inmate recidivism rates are substantial, even after they have served 10 or 15 years in prison, so they remain dangerous. 57.5% of federal inmates imprisoned for violence for ten years or more were arrested yet again after being released. (See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Recidivism of Federal Violent Offenders Released in 2010, pg. 33 (Feb. 2022)). The fact that a judge gives an inmate a "second look" and lets them out doesn't mean they won't reoffend. Washington, DC's second look law requires a finding that the inmate being released is not a danger to public safety, but many of the inmates released under it (most of whom are murderers) have been arrested again after being released. The Daily Caller reported that 20% of those released under Washington, DC's second look law had been arrested in the short time after their release. See James Lynch, "Man Who Raped 3 Women And Forced Victims To Dig Their Own Graves Seeks Early Prison Release Under DC Law," Daily Caller, February 1, 2023 (stating that "The law has led to 135 defendants being released early, of whom 28 have been rearrested") (available at https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/01/sexual-assault-three-women-early-release-washington-dc/). Simply because someone is middle aged due to serving 15 years in prison does not keep them from being dangerous. Many notorious serial killers were still active in their 50s, like Peter Tobin and John Reginald Christie. Serial killer Albert Fish started killing at age 54, and Dorothea Puente started at age 53. Some murderers keep killing as senior citizens. At the age of 76, Albert Flick killed a woman, stabbing her at least 11 times while her twin sons watched. He had previously been imprisoned from 1979 to 2004 for killing his wife by stabbing her repeatedly in front of her daughter. Marceline Harvey was arrested for killing again at age 83, after two prior convictions in New York. Harvey, who gender-transitioned after being released from prison, was arrested after previously spending three decades in prison for killing one girlfriend, and before that, spending 20 years in prison for killing an earlier girlfriend. Twice, Harvey had been paroled and released after deliberately murdering a woman.

I want to express my support for sentence modification. On behalf of my family, we have waited 22 years for the opportunity to see our loved one grow and be released from the Virginia Department of Corrections. Yes, he committed a crime. Yes, he absolutely needed time to reflect on his shortcomings and modify his behaviors. Did he need 88 years to accomplish that needed growth and change? Absolutely not. Our loved one didn't murder anyone. But he has seen murderers come and go in his time in the Virginia Department of Corrections, waiting for his turn to go home. Our loved one never raped anyone or held anyone hostage. Our loved one never tortured or maimed anyone. But he has seen rapists and pedophiles come and go in and out of the Virginia Department of Corrections, but he still waits for his turn to go home. He completed everything the DOC and the state asked him to do in order to earn his release. A release that he still sits and waits for. He has learned numerous trades and certifications that our community so desperately needs, but will never see the benefit of because, by the time of our loved one's release, if he lives that long, he will be elderly and unable to use those skills our community needs. He has gained so much wisdom and experience that could help change others before they go into the system. Those others will be lost because our loved one still sits and waits for his turn to go home. I won't give this testimony to diminish his crime. But as I sit here, I really must ask, Who is the real criminal here? It started off as our loved one, but he isn't the criminal now. Our loved one worked so hard for just a chance to be better and do better, and now he is being robbed of that chance by the Virginia Department of Corrections and the State. He is no longer that 21-year-old boy looking for an adrenalin rush. He is a grown man who is getting tired and is wasting away in a broken system. He has a home with a wife. His children have grown and now he has grandchildren. He still has living parents, and they need him so much. He has a support system that most could only dream of post-release, but he more than likely will never see any of it without passing HB 834 into law. I am once again gonna say that yes, he did the crime, and he had to do time for it. But 88 years for getting handed a credit card and keys for a joy ride for a few hours is the crime now. Our loved one's continued incarceration is now punishing us by not releasing him. We did nothing wrong. So if we can't have parole, at least give us the chance for sentence modification. It's the only chance we have for our family to finally be at peace and move on. We have to pass HB 834 into law.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

HB928 should not be considered as adequate laws are already in place and this would create a class division and open opportunities for misapplication. All user groups should enjoy the same access and protection levels whether recreational or commercial. discriminating against certain user groups is not ethical or part of the north American game management model. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, You should oppose HB928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for every Virginian.

Oppose HB928 Unessary legislation as adequate protections exist for all boaters currently. It is critical that commercial fishing not be granted these protections as it may lead to "overuse" of law enforcement resources by the commercial fishery. I am very concerned this bill may actually generate more conflict between watermen, recreational boaters, commercial vessels, and even waterfront homeowners if it is enacted.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I have written in to the past HBs this fall and I am writing in again to help protect our waters. I am in full opposition of this bill. It Our fisheries are depleted and waters are warming. I'm sorry for the impact that these regulations may have on Omega, and more specifically the actual workers who they employ. Sadly, we must oppose industry practices that are not supportive of both our ecology and community, even if it comes at the expense of some local economy. Humans are resilient, they will find a way. Fish are also resilient, but in the face of human greed and corner cutting, resilience isn't enough. We must take responsibility for our waters. I will keep writing in to these. Hopefully we can work through this period of conflict and move into a more ethical future with less presence of Omega and commercial overfishing in our waters. Again, I am in full oposition to this bill and exclusive fishing rights for commercial fishers.

I am opposed to this bill because I am concerned that this bill could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Omega Protein, not only does NOT require any specific additional legal protections from the Commonwealth, but as it is Virginia’s only industrial menhaden processor, it IS, in fact, a DETERMINANT to a MAJORITY of the citizens of the Commonwealth! The benefits of Omega Protein’s continued existence benefits very few people, while it does great harm to the environment of the Chesapeake Bay and the entire eastern coast of the United States in general. The indisputable fact is that Omega Protein removes almost all of the menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay and thus the entire region. The menhaden is a primary food source for the entire ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay region, and therefore this is a major NEGATIVE IMPACT for the entire East Coast of the United States. There can be NO DOUBT that in the ABSENCE of the environmental damage caused by the continued operation of Omega Protein, the entire Chesapeake Bay ecosystem would be FAR HEALTHIER and all other marine species would be positively impacted by the protection of the menhaden fishery. Those Commonwealth politicians who are continuing to support Omega Protein will find themselves on the wrong side of this issue in the end. History repeatedly shows that overfishing of even a single species (crabs, strippers, redfish, etc.) is destructive to the entire marine ecosystem. Not only do I strongly oppose this particular bill, HB 928, but I strongly oppose the continued operation of Omega Protein, as it obviously has a very negative impact on the Commonwealth in general and the Chesapeake Bay in particular. Sincerely, Greg Hairston 131 Routten Rd Hampton, Va 23664

It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Support of foreign corporations over native Virginians will be the first factor I consider come election time and my vote will not go to any official that has a history of such action.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Totally oppose this bill as infringement on Virginia citizens and recreational fisherman’s rights

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill appears to grant preferential rights to commercial fishermen over all others on the water. While I am not in favor of permitting anybody to harass another, we already have laws that govern the rights and behavior of all people in the water and it seems unnecessary to introduce a new law that unfairly advantages one group over others. There is no need for a new law and this should be rejected.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I am writing you to share my thoughts and concerns regarding your proposed legislation, House Bill 1465. 1. State laws already exist (impeding, assault, battery and property damage) that protect the safety and property of commercial fishermen from abuse. 2. There is no evidence of an increase in these offenses directed towards the commercial fishing industry in Virginia. This law is unjustified. 3. The impeding law, (Code of Virginia 28.2-903.1.) has only been enforced once by the VMRC. It is a class 3 misdemeanor. 4. The proposed law is unequal in that commercial fishermen would receive greater protections than recreational fishers and boaters. 5. Words like “coerce, intimidate, harass or interfere” are overly broad and subjective. 6. The 50-foot distance is arbitrary and unenforceable on the water. 7. Requiring court venue to be in the home port of the vessel is equal to “forum shopping” and counter to existing law and practice. 8. The special license revocation provisions directed at recreational fishers and hunters is discriminatory. 9. If passed, this legislation could have a chilling effect on fundamental liberties, including the constitutional right to protest. 10. Commercial fishing vessels are either docked or underway and generally not easily approachable or interfered with. 11. Seizure and forfeiture of a vessel for a simple misdemeanor violation of this proposed law is excessive. 11. The tidal waters of Virginia are public space. The marine resources of this state are owned collectively by the public. Citizens should not fear imprisonment for monitoring the commercial fishing industry for abuses. 12. This proposed legislation contradicts the moral principles of equal and fair representation. The proposed legislation is unneeded and unjust. 13. I presume that Cooke, Inc. (a Canadian-based seafood company) has supported this legislation directly or through middlemen. Note: Impeding commercial fishing in Canada is equal to a class 1 misdemeanor (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 13.1). I urge you not to allow foreign owned companies to influence our elections, criminal code or civil liberties.

Bumping up this misdemeanor creates a “bullying “ situation that any commercial fish entity can use to make trouble for recreational fisherman who may already be in an area exercising their right to fish.

I strongly oppose HB928. Over the last 25+ years living in VA I have seen how reduction commercial fishing has destroyed the bay. No other state on the east coast allows this. Commercial fishermen should not be afforded special protections above others on the water. They are the culprits who threaten others on the water.

Please do not pass HB 928. Omega Protein already takes too many fish out of the bay, menhaden and everything else. I have been fishing after the Omega nets have been through the area and there are no fish to be caught, not even a nibble. I would be for a bill that permanently sends Omega and their boats out of the bay and into the ocean like other states have done. Please do not pass HB 928. Thank you

I cannot improve on the comments made by Cortez ( from Mechanicsville). Like our National Forest and Public Lands, we all own this resource, not the two hundred or so seasonal employees in Reedville. Stop or severely curtail the harvest inside the Bay until a thorough study has been completed.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Please do not support this bill . Omega is destroying the menhaden in the bay at a rate much faster than it can replenish itself. Recreational fishermen should have the same rights as commercial. Save the bay!

Don’t do this - omega is trashing our fisheries here in VA and the rest of the east coast, they routinely ignore quotas- this is absurd to put their interests over all the Virginian who enjoy our waters or depend on recreational fishing for a livelihood .

I hope you are not seriously siding with a foreign country's business, and giving them priority over a legal Virginan. Impending anyone from fishing is already a misdemeanor, what makes a commercial fishing vessel have priority over a Virginian resident fishing. I believe y'all should stop thinking about the money more than the duties and protection of Virginians that you swore to uphold.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I appose this and omega fisheries should not be allowed to harvest anything in the bay area. This is a resort city and people come from all over to fish these waters and the fishing is declining for the regular anglers. I am an avid fisherman and I fish fresh and salt water and for what you have to pay for licences and registration to have the rest of the places to fish taken away is ridiculous. There is hardly any place to fish here without being harassed by police or game wardens for trespassing or the place closing at a certain time. If this crap passes then more places should be accessible for regular fisherman and cost for the fishing license and boat registration should be cut in half . Make the big mighty omega fishery pay a lot more to harvest and kill the fish in the bay. This is the worst kind of thing that can happen. Always looking out for the rich man instead of the not so rich man and making it hard for the little guy that just wants to take his kids fishing and not have to drive miles away from home just to find a place to fish. Let the big fisheries go farther away...they can afford it.

There are already laws that prohibit harassing these Omega pirates. Just enforce those laws. This bill will give omega a pass to harass us recreational fishermen on the contrary. The bill should be voted down.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Omega needs to be banned from the bay. I am a recreational fisherman and i do not need omega bullying me out of the area because they want to drop nets. They should not be raping our bay to begin with. This is insane and completely asinine.

As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Strongly oppose. Recreational fishermen would be negatively affected.

As a fly fishing charter captain, business owner resident of Virginia, angler, and conservationist, I am completely opposed to HB 928. The idea that a Commercial Vessels have any more right over the water than recreational vessels creates restrictions for your constituents that are neither just or necessary. As it stands, a vessel involved in commercial fishing has the right of way under Coast Guard regulation making this bill unnecessary. There are a lot of charter guides with commercial licenses, what would happen if a recreational charter captain with a commercial license and one without one were to find themselves at odds over a spot - would the law automatically favor the one with a commercial license? The US holds water in a public trust, in a way, this is an attempt to privatize sections of the resource and completely against the entire conservation model. Please shut down this bill for my business, for your constituents, and for the resource that Omega seeks to destroy for their own profit. Thank you, Capt. Valencia

We oppose the bill.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a student currently engaged in graduate studies for environmental economics, I strongly oppose HB 928. I currently live on a tributary to Mobjack Bay and enjoy leisurely afternoons with my family on our boat. We have been closely monitoring the Osprey pair that nest in front of our home and sadly, have witnessed nest failure over the past three years, meaning they have produced no offspring. There is a significant decline and failure of Osprey viability in the Mobjack Bay area, directly tied to Omega Protein overfishing within the Chesapeake Bay. Their actions are basically starving the Osprey and negatively impacting other fish species who feed upon menhaden. Last year, we witnessed our male Osprey grab a rodent from our field, which upon speaking to a William and Mary wildlife biologist about this behavior, exclaimed the birds had to have been particularly starving for that to occur. To allow any commercial fishing vessel special protections on top of their ability to already overfish our delicate marine ecosystem is unconscionable.

Providing commercial fishing operations additional protections above that which is granted to recreational fishers is hypocritical relative to their respective impacts on the environment. Additionally this case appears to be precedented by acts of a non-fishing related boat operator and therefor including penalties for licensed fishers is irrelevant to the actual issue. As a dedicated conservationist and sportsman, and voter, I do not support this bill.

I vehemently oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Sincerely, Dr. Suzanne Seekins

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. -Charles Barefoot

OPTIONAL TEMPLATE COMMENTS: I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

AGAINST: HB928 does not give any parameters as to the distance before an interruption is valid. Furthermore, this bill criminalizes any recreational fisherman or boater within the vicinity of a commercial boat whether transitting or enjoying a beautiful day off the coast. Finally, the last action in this bill shows an agenda of protecting commercial fisherman over amateur fisherman. Instead of revoking the offenders boating license the penalty is to revoke a hunting and fishing license. This shows malice towards amateur, weekend, and family fisherman.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Before voting on a Bill it is incumbent of every Member of government to at least ask one question about any bill before them. Is there a law in place already? If the answer is yes , the Bill should be voted down Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. Therefore HB 928 should be voted down. There is a law in place to protect all people from interference while fishing. There is no need, nor should there be any desire to place one segment of the fishing community above the other. Thank you for your service to all the people of Virginia.

I am strongly against HB 928 and have serious concerns that this bill is both unreasonable and unjustifiable because it assigns special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. Currently, under Virginia law, ANY PERSON who impedes ANY FISHING of any species of fish is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water already is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property.

As a charter captain in the Chesapeake Bay, I strongly encourage you to oppose this bill. This bill basically gives every commercial vessel in the bay, right way at all times while transiting the bay. The United States, Coast Guard has rules and regulations when it comes to how to navigate around vessels. This law is punitive to the recreational angler or pleasure motor as it gives commercial vessels complete control over the water. I can just imagine some recreational anglers fishing an area and an omega protein boat come in and set nets and then try to call the police to say the recreational anglers are harassing them . This is a terrible bill and should not make it out of committee. I encourage you to do research because there are already several statutes and laws regarding criminal offense toward commercial fisherman we don’t need anymore. Thank you for your consideration, Capt. Craig Freeman

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As an avid angler and kayaker in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

The Chesapeake bay does not belong to omga protein,It belongs to the people of Virginia. I strongly oppose HB928

I oppose this bill and any regulation that favors commercial fishermen over recreational fishermen. Recreational fishermen contribute much more to the Virginia economy than then commercial fishing. This Bill seems to be created to benefit one corporation which has headquarters out of this country. We ALL deserve the same protection under the law. I will support stronger penalties for those that harass all fisherman, not just commercial.

OPTIONAL TEMPLATE COMMENTS: I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. I encourage you to support legislation that restricts the destruction of our bay and fisheries by the over harvesting of fish by commercial fisherman.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill only provides protection for commercial fishermen and seems tailored specifically towards Omega Protein. As a recreational fisherman I have been harassed on the water by both Omega protein and PETA. If you are going to pass this legislation it should at the minimum be modified to apply to all fishermen on the water. If the bill is not modified it should not be passed. Preferential treatment for one class of fishermen is discriminatory. We are all supposedly treated equally under the law.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I vehemently oppose any regulation that favors commercial fisherman over recreational fisherman. I have also been harassed by a jet ski while fishing from a kayak on the Chesapeake Bay. We ALL deserve the same protection under the law. Forget HB928! However, I will fully support stronger penalties for those that harass ANY fisherman, not just commercial. Thank you for your consideration. -Steven Fry

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a Virginia resident who represents a ordinary typical citizen who participates in recreational boating and fishing, I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is currently subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler which is both unfair and unjust. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian regardless of association with either the commercial or recreational fisheries or safe boating activities.

The minhaden boats are emptying the bay every night 7 days a week. Please stop this ecological nightmare, normal anglers cannot enjoy fishing when there are no fish, and I certainly don't think a commercial fishing operation like this should have control of our bay.

strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I oppose this bill. It provides special protections for commercial fisherman over all others. Recreational fishermen contribute at least 3 times more to the Virginia economy than then commercial fishing. This Bill seems to be created to benefit one corporation which has headquarters out of this country.

strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill is both unreasonable and unjustifiable because it assigns special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. Currently, under Virginia law, ANY PERSON who impedes ANY FISHING of any species of fish is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water already is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. I am also concerned that this bill could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen. A law already exists which addresses the concern, if there is a violation then the law needs to be enforced. Don't waste time and taxpayer resources remaking laws that already exist.

This bill is totally unnecessary and ridiculous in its nature. Why would the government give unfettered acces to our fishable waters to any one group. In the case of Omega, they refuse to obey the quotes set , yet they want to own the water surrounding their vessel? I do not condon the whale wars type of harassment of any one group, but i also don't agree with giving them unfettered control of their fishing territory

Although I do not condone interference with commercial vessels, I believe the proposed bill will give commercial vessels, who already have too much of a presence in our protected waters, even more control. Time would be more wisely spent policing the fish kills and over fishing of our Bay. Why not do your job and protect the bay for future generations rather than line your pockets with donations form companies like Omega?

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928, recreational anglers should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen. Get the menhaden boats out of the bay and this bill would not be needed.

I am concerned the bill may be worded that a company like Omega uses it to their benefit beyond the safety matters as the purpose. Omega has shown their ability to imply certain issues are worse than or not as significant as reality.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Comments Document

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership remains strongly opposed to HB928 in its substituted form. The House subcommittee substitutions adopted do not alleviate our concerns that the provisions of HB928 are unreasonable and unjustifiable, as they afford special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial fishing vessels over all other anglers and boaters in the Commonwealth. The substituted bill text could still, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers and boaters who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishing operators. Virginia Code (29.1-554.1) states that any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. HB928, which would subject anyone interfering with commercial fishing activity to a Class 1 misdemeanor, would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water, and would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler, for example. Virginia Code (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any related offenses. Under HB928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting and/or fishing license would be more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. Again, HB928 would discriminate against all Virginians but commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish and/or hunt for charges that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. To make their case, supporters of this bill have been using a video of an incident from 2023, where a man on a jet ski interfered with menhaden reduction fishing operations. The man was declared guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, as current Virginia law requires. According to HB928, for the same incident, that man could be declared guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and face jail time. However, if a commercial fishing vessel were to approach a recreational angler fishing for striped bass amongst a school of menhaden, for example, and interfere with his recreational fishing activity, the commercial fishermen involved would not be subject to the same penalties. HB928 is discriminatory against not only recreational anglers and boaters, but anyone on Virginia waters who isn’t a commercial fisherman. This discrimination is also clear from public comments made by the coalition supporting this bill, who have stated, “Current law provides for minor penalties, like small fines, which are an insufficient deterrent to individuals with the financial means to own and operate recreational watercraft.” Just because a person is financially able to rent or buy a recreational watercraft, does not mean they should be subject to more severe criminal penalties for their personal conduct. This type of sentiment when creating the laws that all citizens of the Commonwealth must follow is highly discriminatory and unjust. Boating safety laws and wildlife and fishing laws must be applied equally under the law, regardless of the activity the public is engaged in, and regardless of financial means.

I am writing to express my support for HB928. As a Waterman, Vice-President of the VA Waterman’s Association that represents Commercial Fisherman; and as a Veteran and Founder for Knott Alone—Hold Fast, inc. Hold Fast is a therapy program to help prevent Veteran and first responder suicides that uses crabbing, oystering, aquaculture, and shoreline vegetation production as well as recreational fishing and hunting as part of our work/nature-based, peer-supported program. We are out on the Bay daily as part of our program and have personally witnessed reckless behavior by recreational boaters and fisherman in an apparent show of their disapproval for Commercial Fisherman. Boaters will run through crab pot lines, run wide-open directly beside a waterman hand-tonging oysters while standing on the side of the boat, cut in between boats dredging oysters. We recently had a commercial fisherman who had a striped bass recreational fisherman come along-side on the York River and cuss him out and then proceed to run across his gill-net tearing it up. This reckless and dangerous behavior is being enabled and empowered by groups like Menhaden Defenders and the VA Sport Fishing Association. You can scroll through their social media pages or listen on the maritime radio channels to witness this first-hand. Whether intentionally or not, the end result is that reckless individuals are using this “cause” to demonstrate their disapproval for Commercial Fishing and I have yet to see any public disapproval shown by these organizations to this sort of reckless behavior. They show the routes of the spotter planes and ask boaters to help “defend the bay”…recently when a jet ski harassed a commercial fishing boat they were applauded on several of these sites and one comment even said it was great that they Omega boats had to go back to “hell where they belong” because their gear was damaged. These actions against Omega Protein (the primary target of this type of harassment) has absolutely spread to other aspects of commercial fishing and must stop before someone is seriously hurt or these emboldened acts continue to target commercial fisherman and their gear. This bill is a great start to help give the VA Marine Police and the courts more avenues and flexibility to help mitigate this type of dangerous behavior. The current laws are basically a slap on the hand whereas this bill makes it a true consequence for an reckless action…a felony charge and a potential loss of a hunting/fishing privilege will hopefully make these individuals and groups that support and empower them think twice about endangering commercial fishermen! Thank you for considering this bill and thank you for the sponsors of this bill to help make a difference! Respectfully, Dan Knott

I am writing to show support of HB 928. Harassment toward working commercial fishermen has increased in aggression and become more frequent in recent years. Each incident has been documented and reported to the appropriate agency; unfortunately, the ramifications resulting from the incidents have not been a deterrent. While the menhaden fishing vessels may be large in size, the two smaller “purse boats” that are deployed to catch the fish are small 40ft boats with low sides and have 5 fishermen on each vessel. The attached video shows where a jet skier aggressively approaches these smaller vessels narrowly missing them on multiple occasions. The 10 fishermen onboard were put in great danger and could have been severely injured for absolutely no reason. These types of targeted incidents have become more frequent in the last few years and appear to directly coincide with the escalating aggressive comments and threats that have been documented on social media.

Good Afternoon! I am Lee Robbins, a Captain on the F/V Rappahannock for Ocean Harvesters out of Reedville Va. I and my entire crew are in favor of HB928. We thank the Patron Delegate Kent for drafting this Bill. I have been working on the Bay and Coastal waters since graduating from high school in 1982. I have Captained a vessel since 1997. Being responsible for 15 men on the open water night and day from May till January is a huge responsibility that I don't take lightly. In the last several seasons we have witnessed numerous acts of aggression against our fishery. We have been targeted on social media by individuals who report the locations of our vessels and planes daily. Boats have positioned themselves to keep us from catching the schools of fish that we seek. There have been verbal assaults by radio and close interaction. This past season we had the jet skier who not only scared our crew with his reckless operation and threats but also damaged our net. If we were to call the Hotline at VMRC and report every little incident, we wouldn't have had time to do our jobs and Law enforcement would have been stretched beyond their means. I hope this Bill can become law and help to curb the aggression so we can concentrate on our safety and livelihood. I have always welcomed boats to witness our process of fishing. We welcome boats to come alongside and get some of our catch for bait. Aggression and hate have no place in any work zone.

Good afternoon, I am writing today to show support for HB 928, the interference with commercial fisherman and penalties. We at UFCW 400 are the proud representatives of the Omega Protein fishermen. Fishermen have the second most dangerous in the nation. This bill would protect these workers from TARGETED threats to kill or do bodily harm, and other intended actions of harm. This bill protects workers from persons intending to do harm, threatening harm, and targeting fishermen while they are working. No worker should be targeted with death threats or threats of bodily harm while they are working. Fishermen already are working hard to keep themselves and others on the water safe; targeted attacks only heightens the dangerous nature of this job, and put lives at risk. We strongly urge support on this worker's safety bill.

Comments Document

Please see the attached letter of opposition to HB 928 from The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a national conservation, hunting, and fishing advocacy organization dedicated to guaranteeing all Americans quality opportunities to hunt and fish. The TRCP has nearly 5,000 members who are Virginia residents, as well as partner organizations including the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association and American Sportfishing Association, headquartered in the Commonwealth. The property rights protections in this bill are already written into the Code of Virginia, rendering such amendments unnecessary. Our members have serious concerns that the provisions of this bill are both unreasonable and unjustifiable, as they afford special protections for commercial fishermen and the owners and captains of commercial fishing vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. There is also concern a broad application of this law could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational fishing activities for anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial operations. As representatives for the recreational angling and boating community in Virginia, and along the Atlantic coast, we urge you to oppose HB 928 and maintain the current legal statutes that afford equal protections to safety and property for all Virginians.

Please table this unnecessary publicity stunt by the reduction fishing industry. The thought that a couple fishermen on a 26 foot boat can threaten a 300 foot long purse seine ship where the deck is ten feet above them is ridiculous. If passed the industry could bring charges against any innocent fisherman that comes near them and ruin them financially with defense costs. Our boating citizens have the right to approach these ships to see if they are violating fishing or pollution laws in their toxic bilge discharges. The public needs to know if they are catching our gamefish as the are feeding in the schools caught and if the fish are being killed in the process as about 500 red drum spawning fish were recently. This bill if passed would allow the industry to Threaten anyone that comes near them with arrest, huge fines and worse. I urge you to kill this dangerous proposal .

HB 928 is completely unnecessary and is part of the intimidation tactics practiced by the reduction industry for years. These industrial ships are quite large and often intimidate fishermen by their sheer size. They often show up in number and our anglers often feel a need to vacate the area. Sure, there has been some yelling over the years but we hardly need a new law! The truth is these large industrial ships simply do not belong in the fragile waters of our Chesapeake Bay. They have been banned by every other state on the East Coast, because those states have seen the harm this can cause to the ecosystem. This bill appears to be an effort to counter The criticism of this Canadian owned fishery. It is true that no one trusts this industry to do the right thing and they have shown us over and over They are not good stewards of the bay. For example, the industry is currently lobbying against an important bill that would provide necessary Research on the state of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. That tells you everything you need to know about this company and why this bill is nothing more than a smokescreen to detract from the real issue with this industry.

HB 928 is a naked attempt by the reduction fishing industry in the Northern Neck to put a cold chill on the grassroots effort of Virginia citizens to shed light on the practices of their industry. There has been no increase of incidents that would require additional penalties or measures. No one that I have heard of is out there attacking or even protesting commercial fishing vessels. How many incidents were reported in 2023? The clause pertaining to loss of fishing licenses to to scare honest boat captains away from hiring out or giving their services to those who may want to observe what is taking place, including the press. It also is trying scare recreational fisherman from even approaching areas where the industrial boats are fishing, for fear of having their vessels falsely accused of harassment. Allowing the charges to be brought by the jurisdiction in which the commercial vessel is ported instead of where the incident occurs, creates a situation where local prosecutors may be unduly influenced by the industry or community peer pressure to use their power to intimidate or falsely accuse. The further accusations and loose interpretations of conspiracy charges and electronic messaging leaves an exceptionally unfettered possibility for abuse. There are already multiple laws on the books that cover the criminality of anyone inferring or threating a commercial fishing boat, its captain, or crew. No one is out on the water protesting these boats. There has been a very, very limited number of filmed reports done to my knowledge. Here is an example of a typical encounter. The video is 3 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcUHly7zmeQ Virginia waters are a public space. Boat captains who are acting legally should not fear legal action for monitoring the practices of commercial fishing. This bill is poorly written and a lowly attempt at bullying. It should be tabled.

I am writing to share my thoughts and concerns regarding proposed legislation, House Bill 928: 1. Laws already exist (impeding, assault and battery) that protect the safety and property of commercial fishermen from abuse. 2. There is no evidence of an increase in these offenses directed towards the commercial fishing industry in Virginia. 3. The impeding law, (Code of Virginia 28.2-903.1.) has only been enforced once by the VMRC. 4. The felony enhancements in the proposed legislation, are usually reserved for crimes against first-responders. 5. The proposed threat provision penalties, are usually reserved for crimes against Governor and his immediate family; not businesses. 6. Words like “approach, coerce, intimidate or harass” are overly broad and subjective. 7. Requiring court venue to be in the home port of the vessel is equal to “forum shopping” and counter to existing law and practice. 8. The special revocation provisions directed at recreational fishers and hunters is superfluous and discriminatory. 9. If enacted, the legislation would have a chilling effect on the constitutional right to protest. 10. Commercial fishing vessels are either docked or underway and generally not easily approachable or interfered with. 11. The tidal waters of Virginia are public space. The marine resources of this state are owned collectively by the public. Citizens should not fear imprisonment for monitoring the commercial fishing industry for abuses. 12. This special-interest legislation contradicts the moral principles of equal and fair representation. I respectfully request that this legislation be tabled.

HB1187 Vote no

Thank you for your time in considering this bill from the viewpoint of the many Virginia families dealing with a loved one’s mental illness. Please pass this bill. It provides 2 caveats to permitting others: safety risk and medical risk. The facility has taken extraordinary safety precautions by isolating the ECO subject from the rest of the facility and having law enforcement present. The ECO subject is unarmed. Mental illness agitation episodes are easily misinterpreted as aggressive and combative, and the law enforcement officer can turn it into an unfortunate criminal charge. Additionally, the very presence of a law enforcement officer can be frightening and intimidating, and worsen the episodic behavior rather than de escalating it. Alternatively, a family member experienced with the mental illness episodes and whom the ECO subject trusts can be a reassuring and calming influence. The facility has visitation policies in place and the physician is in a position to enforce them and determine if the family member is an appropriate visitor. The second caveat is medical risk. The physician is the appropriate person to determine if there is a medical risk or if the the visitor’s presence interferes with the assessment and stabilization process to determine if a detention order is appropriate. Thank you for your time reading my comments and your careful consideration of the family-oriented improvements to this bill.

HB1242 is important to help calm individuals in a mental health crisis and prevent them from further destabilization while in custody awaiting treatment. If this bill had been in effect already, it could have helped prevent the eventual death of Irvo Otieno by allowing his mother and closest supporter to be with him and calm him when he was taken to a medical facility for emergency treatment during a mental health crisis. The bill is limited to situations in which the individual being treated wants the family member to be present.

I am writing as the co-chair of the VACDL legislative committee to express our organizational support for this necessary change in the law. It is incongruent that under current law participants in these specialty courts and dockets can receive a restricted license during participation but it is yanked away from them upon graduation. The graduates of these programs are to be commended, and they are not risks to the public because they have received the necessary and deserved assistance that addresses the underlying issues they have dealt with. I am glad that this bill has support of many other stakeholders in criminal justice and want to make certain the honorable members of our legislatures are aware that the state’s organization of criminal defense lawyers also enthusiastically support this measure.

Hello!My name is Natela and I been struggling for so long finding affordable housing in Fairfax County,Virginia.I am 58 years old female who have a very low income.I contacted more then 500 places trying to find one bedroom apartment or private basement and all this places asking for income 3-3.5 times bigger then cost of apartment.Making any person who is trying to rent one bedroom apartment in Fairfax county need to make around 5-6000 dollars per month.How many percent of people having this high salary jobs?I DON’T. I’m making now 12.00 dollars per hour.This amount of money disqualified me from any housing I applied.My question to HUD and all other housing authorities WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME??????? WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SURVIVE LIVING IN FAIRFAX AREA?HOUSING PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL!GROCERY PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL! ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS ARE CLOSED.ALL WAITING LISTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CLOSED TO. I BET YOU ALL JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT US!

Hello!My name is Natela and I been struggling for so long finding affordable housing in Fairfax County,Virginia.I am 58 years old female who have a very low income.I contacted more then 500 places trying to find one bedroom apartment or private basement and all this places asking for income 3-3.5 times bigger then cost of apartment.Making any person who is trying to rent one bedroom apartment in Fairfax county need to make around 5-6000 dollars per month.How many percent of people having this high salary jobs?I DON’T. I’m making now 12.00 dollars per hour.This amount of money disqualified me from any housing I applied.My question to HUD and all other housing authorities WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME??????? WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SURVIVE LIVING IN FAIRFAX AREA?HOUSING PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL!GROCERY PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL! ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS ARE CLOSED.ALL WAITING LISTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CLOSED TO. I BET YOU ALL JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT US!