The Law on Illegal Dumping

§22-15A-4. Unlawful disposal of litter; civil and criminal penalty; litter control fund; evidence; notice violations; litter receptacle placement; penalty; duty to enforce violations.
(a) (1) No person shall place, deposit, dump, throw or cause to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown any litter as defined in section two of this article, in or upon any public or private highway, road, street or alley; any private property; any public property; or the waters of the state or within one hundred feet of the waters of this state, except in a proper litter or other solid waste receptacle.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to place, deposit, dump, throw or cause to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown any litter from a motor vehicle or other conveyance or to perform any act which constitutes a violation of the motor vehicle laws contained in section fourteen, article fourteen, chapter seventeen-c of this code.
(3) If any litter is placed, deposited, dumped, discharged, thrown or caused to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown from a motor vehicle, boat, airplane or other conveyance, it is prima facie evidence that the owner or the operator of the motor vehicle, boat, airplane or other conveyance intended to violate the provisions of this section.
(4) Any person who violates the provisions of this section by placing, depositing, dumping or throwing or causing to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown any litter, not collected for commercial purposes, in an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds in weight or twenty-seven cubic feet in size, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, he or she is subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or in the discretion of the court, sentenced to perform community service by cleaning up litter from any public highway, road, street, alley or any other public park or public property, or waters of the state, as designated by the court, for not less than eight nor more than sixteen hours, or both.
(5) Any person who violates the provisions of this section by placing, depositing, dumping or throwing or causing to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown any litter, not collected for commercial purposes, in an amount greater than one hundred pounds in weight or twenty-seven cubic feet in size, but less than five hundred pounds in weight or two hundred sixteen cubic feet in size is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction he or she is subject to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000, or in the discretion of the court, may be sentenced to perform community service by cleaning up litter from any public highway, road, street, alley or any other public park or public property, or waters of the state, as designated by the court, for not less than sixteen nor more than thirty-two hours, or both.
(6) Any person who violates the provisions of this section by placing, depositing, dumping or throwing or causing to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown any litter in an amount greater than five hundred pounds in weight or two hundred sixteen cubic feet in size or any amount which had been collected for commercial purposes is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the person is subject to a fine not less than $2,500 or not more than $25,000 or confinement in jail for not more than one year or both. In addition, the violator may be guilty of creating or contributing to an open dump as defined in section two, article fifteen, chapter twenty-two of this code and subject to the enforcement provisions of section fifteen of said article.
(7) Any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section is subject to double the authorized range of fines and community service for the subsection violated.
(8) The sentence of litter clean up shall be verified by environmental inspectors from the Department of Environmental Protection. Any defendant receiving the sentence of litter clean up shall provide, within a time to be set by the court, written acknowledgment from an environmental inspector that the sentence has been completed and the litter has been disposed of lawfully.
(9) Any person who has been found by the court to have willfully failed to comply with the terms of a litter clean up sentence imposed by the court pursuant to this section is subject to, at the discretion of the court, double the amount of the original fines and community service penalties originally ordered by the court.
(10) All law-enforcement agencies, officers and environmental inspectors shall enforce compliance with this section within the limits of each agency's statutory authority.
(11) No portion of this section restricts an owner, renter or lessee in the lawful use of his or her own private property or rented or leased property or to prohibit the disposal of any industrial and other wastes into waters of this state in a manner consistent with the provisions of article eleven, chapter twenty-two of this code. But if any owner, renter or lessee, private or otherwise, knowingly permits any such materials or substances to be placed, deposited, dumped or thrown in such location that high water or normal drainage conditions will cause any such materials or substances to wash into any waters of the state, it is prima facie evidence that the owner, renter or lessee intended to violate the provisions of this section: Provided, That if a landowner, renter or lessee, private or otherwise, reports any placing, depositing, dumping or throwing of these substances or materials upon his or her property to the prosecuting attorney, county commission, the Division of Natural Resources or the Department of Environmental Protection, the landowner, renter or lessee will be presumed to not have knowingly permitted the placing, depositing, dumping or throwing of the materials or substances.
(b) Any indication of ownership found in litter shall be prima facie evidence that the person identified violated the provisions of this section: Provided, That no inference may be drawn solely from the presence of any logo, trademark, trade name or other similar mass reproduced things of identifying character appearing on the found litter.
(c) Every person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to disposing of litter in violation of subsection (a) of this section shall pay a civil penalty in the sum of not less than $200 nor more than $1,000 as costs for clean up, investigation and prosecution of the case, in addition to any other court costs that the court is otherwise required by law to impose upon a convicted person.
The clerk of the circuit court, magistrate court or municipal court in which these additional costs are imposed shall, on or before the last day of each month, transmit fifty percent of a civil penalty received pursuant to this section to the State Treasurer for deposit in the State Treasury to the credit of a special revenue fund to be known as the Litter Control Fund which is hereby continued and transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection. Expenditures for purposes set forth in this section are not authorized from collections but are to be made only in accordance with appropriation and in accordance with the provisions of article three, chapter twelve of this code and upon fulfillment of the provisions set forth in article two, chapter five-a of this code. Amounts collected which are found from time to time to exceed the funds needed for the purposes set forth in this article may be transferred to other accounts or funds and designated for other purposes by appropriation of the Legislature.
(d) The remaining fifty percent of each civil penalty collected pursuant to this section shall be transmitted to the county or regional solid waste authority in the county where the litter violation occurred. Moneys shall be expended by the county or regional solid waste authority for the purpose of litter prevention, clean up and enforcement. The county commission shall cooperate with the county or regional solid waste authority serving the respective county to develop a coordinated litter control program pursuant to section eight, article four, chapter twenty-two-c of this code.
(e) The Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles, upon registering a motor vehicle or issuing an operator's or chauffeur's license, shall issue to the owner or licensee, as the case may be, a summary of this section and section fourteen, article fourteen, chapter seventeen-c of the code.
(f) The Commissioner of the Division of Highways shall cause appropriate signs to be placed at the state boundary on each primary and secondary road, and at other locations throughout the state, informing those entering the state of the maximum penalty provided for disposing of litter in violation of subsection (a) of this section.
(g) Any state agency or political subdivision that owns, operates or otherwise controls any public area as may be designated by the secretary by rule promulgated pursuant to subdivision (8), subsection (a), section three of this article shall procure and place litter receptacles at its own expense upon its premises and shall remove and dispose of litter collected in the litter receptacles. After receiving two written warnings from any law-enforcement officer or officers to comply with this subsection or the rules of the secretary, any state agency or political subdivision that fails to place and maintain the litter receptacles upon its premises in violation of this subsection or the rules of the secretary shall be fined $30 per day of the violation.

Breaking News (Mostly rumor, in fact a whole lot of rumor)

Word on the street is that the busy sheriff's deputies are conducting an investigation of illegal dumping of the human kind.  It is supposed that some one in Marlinton or thereabouts has been using the bathroom in inappropriate places.

 The police have a suspect but we can't figure out how they will known exactly who that person is.  Perhaps they will conduct a DNA test on a stool sample.  Of course,  you have to get a sample DNA from the supposed culprit.  That ought to take some doing. 

Perhaps they will have a "lineup" and match the stool DNA with the sample excrement.  Should be an interesting arrest.

I know of one potential  suspect who takes a bath in Knapps Creek because he says that the river has too many chemicals in it. (Of course, we don't mention the fact that there are probably far worse chemicals in Knapps Creek and the DOH sprayed pesticide and killed the vegetation deader than a door-nail.)

This latest report might be reason to call in the EPA and have them do a water analysis to see where the illegal dumping is occurring.  Seems to me that such an investigation will involve diligent "due process."  (Or perhaps, that is what the culprit is doing himself (or herself)

Try to watch your step on Main street!  

Report any unusual sightings immediately to the Pocahontas County Sheriff's Department.  

The town council may want to rent a special porta-potty for the homeless so they won't have to 
tinkle on main.  It would be well worth it if it keeps the streets clean.

By the way,  what statute would that violate.  Perhaps the town could enact an ordinance making all homeless persons wear diapers.  That's what they do with horses when they engaged in "due process" activity.

Homecoming 1995

What Happened In 1995

Honor Roll

Kindergarten Lawyers are the best

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Maybe We Should Let Kindergarten kids be magistrat...": 

No arresting officer no witness and no victim in court and his lawyer has him plead guilty.lol.

Why cant guys like totten get representation like that.Instead of working a deal to drop 65 felonys to protect the victims.
Protect the victims after sexual abuse and rape not before.Protect them from who.

We need more kindergarten qualified lawyers in Pocahontas County.

maybe go out on a limb here and get some first grade judges and magistrates maybe even third grade.
We already have the preschool law enforcement.
The best deputy in the state maybe the nation lol.
Thats a statement that has a entire state full of people slapping eachother on the back and laughing like hell gasping for air.

And jl found god lol another knee slapper.

We couldnt find any evidence aginst sir rotten. Lol of course not when you dont look or break out the blue broom.


But no problem convicting a guy with no witness no victim and no arresting officer of a minor offense.

Only in Pocahontas County.

Sometime the Truth is Hard to Get

Editor's Note:  Sex with Public Officials particular deputies has proven to be an instant retirement program for girls in Pocahontas.  Even sometimes just the harassment itself is a valuable commodity.  This young lady got $75,000 for her harassment by a deputy.  Lawrence J. Smith the gadfly of Charleston is still digging for the truth in this matter.

Maybe We Should Let Kindergarten kids be magistrates and lawyers.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Judicial Waterboarding in Pocahontas County--The V...": 

Really why did you plead guilty.

I think its plain you should of had your case dismissed. 

But you pleaded guilty.

Your lawyer should work with the pa and the sheriffs office and get you a kindergarten kid to represent you in my opinion.

Really Luther we are all responsible for our seelf.

When she said to plead guilty with the plaintiff and the arresting officer not there the shes not qualified to walk a dog warning light and alarm should of gone off.

You pleaded guilty to a crime with no witness no victim no evidence but a statement and you as a witness against yourself.

Next to living on the streets sleeping on park benches and people's couches do you think there may have been some bad decisions along the way to get you there.

I don't think anybody but you made those decisions.

Its like the guy complaining he got pulled over for driving at night in the rain with no windshield wipers and doing 85 in a 35 mile an hour Zone.

I really hope you get your life together. 

Do not ever expect a Pocahontas County police officer to look out for what's right legal or good for you.  

History has demonstrated time and time again that is highly unlikely except for a couple of the local boys you still have a heart.

Carrie should know when you handle the paperwork of legal documents her name never should have been x'ed out on a legal document or white out used in my opinion.

When's the last time you ever saw a lawyer do that on a legal document.

NEVER.  And if they did they had a long history drug and alcohol abuse

And that's before they finish Law School.

All of this is par for backwoods Woods small-town hick legal systems and law enforcement who have limited experience and training and lack of supervision.

Sometimes it a rare cases of use of power for vengeance or punishment which is not the case here in my opinion.

The Road Runner...

Editor's Note:  I, too, am appalled at how stupid this public defender proved herself to be.  I can't believe that she graduated from law school.  Likewise,  Carrie Wilfong should have known better than to accept a plea bargain after Luther was incarcerated for 35 days and subjected to repeated "hearings"

Then to add insult to injury,  Carrie commits a felony by altering a legal document to cover up her mistakes.  WE HAVE THE PROOF OF SUCH ALTERATION AND IT IS IN THE RECORD.  Carrie has displayed extremely bizarre judgment in this whole matter.  What is so important about jailing Luther Pritt that she has risked the possibility of going to prison for trying to cover up her own mistake.

Remember,  Richard Nixon.  It was only  a third rate burglary  but the subsequent coverup cost him his presidency.  Luther has agreed to file a complaint against Carrie!  Don't turn that channel' stay tuned.  I told Carrie that she was going to get burned on this one.

Last Night of VBS

Habeous corpus

Habeas corpus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the legal term. For other uses, see Habeas corpus (disambiguation).

Prerogative writs
Certiorari / Review Habeas corpus Mandamus / Mandate (peremptory) Procedendo Prohibito / Prohibition Quo warranto
Philippines-specific
Amparo and Habeas Data Writ of Kalikasan
v t e

Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/; Medieval Latin meaning literally "You may have the body"^[1]) is a recourse in lawwhereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official.^[2]

A writ of habeas corpus is known as "the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement",^{[Note 1]} being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest. It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond his or her authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be heldincommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called habeas corpus.^[3] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom').

Habeas corpus has certain limitations. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course.^{[Note 2]} It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law, then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. In some countries, the process has been temporarily or permanently suspended, in all of a government's jurisdictions or only some, because of what might be construed by some government institutions as a series of events of such relevance to the government as to warrant a suspension; in more recent times, such an event has been frequently referred to as a state of emergency.^{[further explanation needed]}

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".^[4]

The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent must prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

VBS Victory Chapel 2016

The Black Folks File

Is this the last Battle of the Civil War?

Magistrate Attempted to Cover Up Mistake

Luther was transported to jail with this document:

§61-4-5. Forging or uttering other writing; penalty; 

creation of unauthorized demand draft.


(a) If any person forge any writing, other than such as is 

mentioned in the first and third sections of this article, to the

 prejudice of another's right, or utter or attempt to employ as 

true such forged writing, knowing it to be forged, he shall be

 guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be confined in 

the penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years,

 or, in the discretion of the court, be confined in jail not more

 than one year and be fined not exceeding five hundred 

dollars.