A number of Senator Chuck Colgan’s constituents were rather taken aback after Colgan sat on his hands and did nothing while the Senate of Virginia shot down a number of bills that would help state and local officials reduce the number of illegal aliens unlawfully present in Virginia, even after an illegal alien massacred three of his constituents just days before these bills were killed. Why, they ask, would my elected representative go AWOL on us right when we needed him to protect our very lives?Well, perhaps Chuck Colgan has a very different take on what “the rule of law” actually means.What that term means to us is that we follow the law, and we expect it to be enforced fairly and consistently against anyone who violates it. Intentionally violating the law when it might seem in our interest to do so isn’t behavior any of us would consider consistent with the “rule of law”, and that should especially be the case for people who decide what the law is that the rest of us are required to follow.On February 19th, 2008 Senator Chuck Colgan and his then-girlfriend Carmen Bernal filed a deed for a property at 8070 Tysons Oak Court in Gainesville, which they paid $10.00 in cash for. Even more fascinating than the idea that Colgan is getting a property then assessed for $651,500 for a mere ten bucks is the fact that the deed named Colgan and Bernal as “tenants by the entirety.” According to VA Code Section 55-20.2, the only persons legally entitled to “tenants by the entirety” status are married couples.That status is helpful if one of the “tenants” passes away, as the whole interest in the property transfers to the surviving “tenant” without having to go through the estate of the deceased, the property is shielded from any tax liabilities, and no attorneys are really required to execute the transfer. This is a big deal when you’re over 80 years old. Conventional joint ownership would have half of the interest in the property subject to court action, and if Colgan just bought the house on his own and his kids weren’t fond of the new girlfriend, they could have her evicted from the property if Colgan died. There are lots of financial and legal implications here, and they’re big ones.Colgan married Bernal on April 4th, 2008 two and a half months after he represented himself as being married in these legal proceedings. That would make the affidavit Colgan and Bernal executed regarding their marital status during the process of purchasing this property at such a suspiciously low price a case of deliberate fraud. Depending on how that document was drafted, it could also constitute perjury.So when we’re asking our elected officials to support the rule of law, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise they don’t when those same legislators who write our laws are busy evading them to their own benefit. “Do as I say, not as I do” isn’t exactly a foreign concept to Democrats in the Senate of Virginia.In other circumstances I might go through the exercise of alerting our Commonwealth’s Attorney that there is ample reason to investigate not only the rather apparent violation of Virginia law that happened here. With Paul Ebert unfortunately filling that position and Ebert’s pathetic history of ignoring political corruption complaints no matter what evidentiary documents you can produce, I know that’s an utterly hopeless cause. Ebert will never investigate this. He never does.So in ways large and small, the basis of our republic as being founded upon the rule of law suffers yet another blow. The politically powerful break the law while we cry out to have Colgan to do something, anything at all, to help support the rule of law and help put an end to having Colgan’s own constituents murdered by illegal aliens.So when you reached out to Chuck Colgan for help in the aftermath of the Manassas Massacre and he didn’t do a thing for you, this might help explain it.UPDATE: The ten dollar figure in the deed may be one of those quaint historical holdovers and not actually represent the value of the property, although the document does clearly say that the full consideration for the property was $10. My deed from 2001 doesn’t say the property was transferred for ten bucks. At any rate, the question of why Colgan’s deed with a person he was not married to was filed in “tenants by the entirety” status is the most interesting question here.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
Leave a Reply