Image default

Three to challenge Sheriff Woody

The Richmond Free Press is reporting three likely challengers to Sheriff C.T. Woody:

At this point, the two-term Democrat appears likely to have three challengers seeking to unseat him. They are: Antionette V. Irving, a major with the Henrico County Sheriff’s Office; Lamont Kizzie, a retired Richmond sheriff’s deputy, and Chris Dorsey, a City Council gadfly.

Sheriff C.T.Woody

Irving for Sherif

Lamont Kizzie

Chris Dorsey



Chris Dorsey
Chris Dorsey


Alex 04/15/2013 at 11:21 AM

Can someone explain what exactly a “City Council gadfly” does? Sounds interesting…

Gold 04/15/2013 at 11:38 AM

First grow a beard. Then be contrary to everything.

spacecat 04/15/2013 at 12:27 PM

I also wondered what ‘gadfly’ meant in this context.
a google ‘gadfly definition’ search brings these up:

gad·fly – /?gad?fl?/ – Noun

1.A fly that bites livestock, esp. a horsefly, warble fly, or botfly.
2.An annoying person, esp. one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The sheriff’s dept. could use a little of #2. As long as ‘action’ actually happens.

Anybody have any links to some neutral reviews of these contenders?

crd 04/15/2013 at 3:09 PM

I think Irving ran against him in the past, but my memory isn’t that good. Anyone else remember?

#5, how is this nepotism when, to my knowledge, none of these people are related to Woody? He is the king of it, granted.

John M 04/15/2013 at 4:57 PM

Irving did run against Woody last time [MORE].

I spoke to her during that campaign and was impressed by her.

Alex 04/15/2013 at 5:56 PM

Irving did look the most competent of the bunch from a quick scan of the material linked.

Woody seems to be a typical self dealing Richmond politician which probably means he’ll get it though.

PTG 04/15/2013 at 6:14 PM

Irving has always been a strong supporter of the community, her foundation has often supported events at the The Salvation Army Boys and Girls Club.

spacecat 04/15/2013 at 9:02 PM

Thanks for the link #7. Irving seems to have relevant experience and is from outside the city’s political structure. Both are positive traits, in my view. November is still a long way off though…

Erik 04/16/2013 at 4:20 PM

Gadfly is too kind. I would take anyone over Chris Dorsey.

A. WMS 04/23/2013 at 10:28 PM

The current sheriff, C.T. Woody, makes nearly $140,000 per year and spreads the “wealth” by hiring multiple family members. In his platform, chris dorsey would reduce his pay by over $100,000 and promises not to hire any family members. This alone would be a direct/immediate impact upon the taxpaying citizens of Richmond. Have the other candidates made any such claim? What of promising to not hire family members?

The writer of the above excerpt, Jeremy Lazarus and Free Press Owner Ray Boone have known dorsey for many years and published letters he wrote in their paper. The letters cover subjects such as Constitutional law, banking and politics. Lazarus’ choice of the word “gadfly” is not only borderline slander but it doesn’t cover dorsey’s work as an economist and TV commentator. The Constitution places and derives all power from the people, dorsey and others who comprehend that are a threat to the corrupt power structure.

chris dorsey 04/24/2013 at 11:25 AM

Uphold the US and Virginia Constitutions. All who violate the law including corporate officers and Government officials will be arrested. Under the law all power is vested in and derived from the people.
End the unconstitutional war on drugs. The Richmond Jail will cease jailing those with non- violent drug charges.
Immediately reduce the number of inmates in Richmond Jail. Only those who pose a threat to the people and violate the law will be jailed.
End corruption in Sheriffs office and Government as a whole. No more deaths due to cruel and unusual punishment. No more hiring family. dorsey will reduce the Sheriff’s pay by over $100,000 and provide jobs to Richmonders.

chris dorsey 938-7773

chris dorsey 04/24/2013 at 2:00 PM

As a member of the Richmond City Democratic Committee I have been a witness to CT Woody running against two Democrats. He did not join the Committee until after the 2009 primary. Calling Woody a Democrat is not only oxymoronic it is factual incorrect. I have since seen him at none of the monthly meetings. Two candidates have agreed to a series of debates on the US and VA Constitutions. Will the others answer the challenge?

Alex 04/24/2013 at 6:51 PM

“Immediately reduce the number of inmates in Richmond Jail. Only those who pose a threat to the people and violate the law will be jailed.”

Are you saying there are inmates in the jail who did not violate a law? If so, please give some more specifics here…

Also, which portion of the constitution prohibits drug charges? I’m a libertarian myself who feels that the drug war is misguided and a waste of funds but don’t know that I’d go so far as to say its “unconstitutional.” To my knowledge the existing laws have passed the process spelled out. Whether they should be overturned through that same process is a matter for debate.

“Uphold the US and Virginia Constitutions. All who violate the law including corporate officers and Government officials will be arrested. Under the law all power is vested in and derived from the people.”

Who’s going to run the city once you enforce this one? 😉 (another place we actually agree)

Alex 04/24/2013 at 6:52 PM

Also, what experience do you have managing a department, team or other organization? Having good ideas is one thing, being able to execute them takes a whole other set of skills.

chris dorsey 04/25/2013 at 1:18 AM

Alex, thanks for the chance to clarify my platform. Through my reading and comprehension of the supreme law the war on drugs is nothing more than a unconstitutional war on the people. This war has unlawful confiscation of property, unlawful detention, unlawful searches, excessive fines, not to mention America has the largest prison population on the planet as a result. When I am Sheriff the dedicated citizens of Richmond will run the city. I am a former business owner who will have co workers campaigning with me.

BAF 04/25/2013 at 7:53 AM

Mr. Dorsey:

I am not aware of a section the Virginia code that gives local sheriffs the power to “cease jailing those with non-vilent drug charges,” if they were sentenced to jail lawfully by the courts. While I agree that it is silly for us to sentence these people to punitive confinement, that does not mean that allows me to ignore the law as I see fit if I am entrusted to uphold them. How will you as Sheriff–a position where you are sworn to uphold the law but not one where you have the power to legislate or adjudicate–realistically refuse to jail these folks if sent to you for custody? Along those same lines, how will you be able to “immediately reduce” the number of inmates in the jail without secure reductions in sentences from the judiciary or the Governor since the code does not appear to allow the Sheriff that unilateral discretion. What criteria would you use to determine who would be released under such an immediate reduction to ensure a fair an equitable process?

Also, given that investigative powers in the City are given over to the police, what resources do you expect to have to investigate and arrest those corporate crooks and government officials who violate the law? How will you keep from unnecessary overlap with the numerous federal, state and local investigative law enforcement agencies that currently operate?

I am interested in how you plan to do these things, because it seems to me that at least some of them would result in you being slapped with numerous contempt of court and dereliction of duty violations that would cause you to become a guest of the department you seek to run.

Alex 04/25/2013 at 8:01 AM

I’m still not seeing any citations of why you believe a ban on drugs is “unconstitutional”? Can you be more specific? I too am familiar with the Constitution but haven’t yet found the part where it says “don’t restrict the people’s access to drugs.”

Like I said earlier, I actually agree that the war on drugs has been a miserable failure. However for folks to throw around “unconstitutional” when stuff isn’t, cheapens that word. It also makes me doubt their reading comprehension skills.

Has our government stretched the boundaries of what is constitutional, or crossed this line, in pursuing the war on drugs? No doubt. But theoretically a ban on drugs itself is not unconstitutional by definition. Over-zealous police states are.

Can you provide more details on the business background you cited? Number of employees, how your company performed under your leadership, etc? This feels like a significant part of your résumé and it’s important for folks to get these details so they can judge whether they want to hire you as our sheriff.

Chris Dorsey 04/25/2013 at 12:46 PM

Hi Alex, In order to execute the war on drugs the government violates nearly all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. There have been groups who consume cannabis as a religious sacrament which is clearly guaranteed under Amendment I. Government agencies use tax payer dollars to pay for drug tests, as well as forcing individuals to urinate in a cup which violates Amendment IV and Amendment V. The rigged courts completely ignore Amendments V, VI, and VII through private property confiscated by the government. VI and VII mandate a speedy jury trial which occurs in less than 5 percent of cases due to unconstitutional government procedure. Amendment VIII prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment both clearly on display in Richmond as a result of the war on drugs. Many in for simple drug charges have died in the city jail due to violations of VIII. Am. IX is key, and states enumeration of rights does not deny natural rights of the people, I think this is key because there is no place in the VA or US Constitution that states any substance can be made illegal except A. XVIII which was repealed and also unconstitutional. I have supervised between 6 and 12 employees running stores in the city such as Picasso Moon, and The Happy Corner.

rrrrrrratchet 04/25/2013 at 1:34 PM

I’m totally getting a wingnut vibe here. Anyone else?

Alex 04/25/2013 at 1:38 PM


You got some valid points in there but you’re still stretching it too thin…

“There have been groups who consume cannabis as a religious sacrament which is clearly guaranteed under Amendment I”

To my knowledge, the government has allowed for peyote use when it meets religious purposes so I’m surprised that there isn’t an exception here also. However, this still isn’t enough for a broad overturning of duly passed laws on a constitutional basis. This could be addressed by allowing a religious exception where it is appropriate.

“Government agencies use tax payer dollars to pay for drug tests”

This is a waste of funds based on the lack of results demonstrated, but no different than any other form of law enforcement. There is a broader concern here about the amount of money and power our government takes from us to spy on us and police us, but you only seem to care whether we can use drugs.

“as well as forcing individuals to urinate in a cup which violates Amendment IV and Amendment V”

Ban drug testing without probable cause… still doesn’t make a ban on drugs unconstitional on the face of it.

“The rigged courts completely ignore Amendments V, VI, and VII through private property confiscated by the government. VI and VII mandate a speedy jury trial which occurs in less than 5 percent of cases due to unconstitutional government procedure.”

This is a breakdown system wide and applies to all criminal prosecutions. Dropping some of the bullshit laws tying up the courts is a good way to solve this. Again, there’s a broader issue here that merits further study but you only sound like you want to fix it as it relates to the drug part?

“Amendment VIII prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment both clearly on display in Richmond as a result of the war on drugs. Many in for simple drug charges have died in the city jail due to violations of VIII”

Completely subjective what’s appropriate. People have died waiting in line at the DMV too. Doesn’t make that cruel and unusual punishment to my knowledge. Who decides what is cruel and unusual? Chris Dorsey?

“Am. IX is key, and states enumeration of rights does not deny natural rights of the people, I think this is key because there is no place in the VA or US Constitution that states any substance can be made illegal”

Half the shit our government does isn’t spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. That’s the real problem. If you want to have a discussion about all of those items that aren’t in here, I’m with you. Let’s talk about the whole mess of what our government currently has its hands in at once and decide what it should be doing and what it shouldn’t.

Basically, my argument with what you’re saying on this is that you are muddying the waters and focusing on the wrong parts of the problem (the non-responsive, overreaching government that has decided to generally do whatever it wants to is a real issue, broken court systems are a real issue, removal of due process in general is a real issue). You’re right that these things are broken.

You’re also right that the war on drugs has been a stupid exercise. However you came to that conclusion the wrong way (it’s stupid because it’s pretty clear that it has made things worse and we learned nothing from prohibition).

What you are proposing sounds like offering an aspirin to an AIDS patient – it might relieve some of the symptoms but you’re not really going after the root cause. We need to focus our efforts on making government more effective, accountable and responsive. Throwing in a whole bunch of crap about just the drug issue detracts from that and could result in a small fix when a bigger one is needed. If we fix the major problems first, the drug issue gets better.

Alex 04/25/2013 at 1:48 PM

@23 – it sounds like an Occupy / Wingnut stance, yes.

I actually think those groups are right on more issues than they aren’t. However, it’s always a case of them getting there with sloppy logic making me question whether they really know what they are talking about mixed with some real kooky shit on the other issues that makes me want to run.

There are plenty of sane people who think drugs should be legalized, police are overzealous, the Federal Reserve is broken, etc. but the difference is how they come at that conclusion, the rationale behind it and their proposed remedies. There’s also plenty of sane people who disagree with those things. The sane folks who disagree with each other usually would rather trust each other than the nuts who share their views but you can’t tell what they’ll do next.

crd 04/25/2013 at 2:47 PM

Mr. Dorsey, would you be willing to post your resume? I, too am curious. I am not familiar with Picasso Moon and The Happy Corner – is the former related to the Paper Moon? I am unable to watch videos from my place of work, so perhaps a resume would be easier to read at this point. Thank you for your responses thus far although I do not necessariy agree with all of them.

ray 04/25/2013 at 7:16 PM

Mr. Dorsey – Were you the guy who was kicked out of the occupiers?

spacecat 04/25/2013 at 10:37 PM

#18 makes cogent points. While Mr. Dorsey’s ideas strike a chord, his ability to practically enact them, as Sheriff, seem unrealistic. The Sheriff has no real authority to release convicted (fairly or otherwise) individuals at his or her personal discretion. Nor can the Sheriff change any laws at his or her discretion. Mr. Dorsey, if you want to make any real changes from within the existing political structure, play your cards closer to the vest. Making the kind of statements listed above, in a public forum, you come across as idealistic, but unrealistic.

Chris Dorsey 04/25/2013 at 11:26 PM

I am the operator of the first Occupy Richmond Facebook page, I called for the First Occupy Richmond meeting and negotiated the location of the event with representatives of the Richmond City Government. I was one of the organizers of Occupy Bilderberg, and hosted the National Occupy Caravan last summer after Occupy Richmond ceased to meet. I have been opposing the criminal, unconstitutional banking system before the Occupy movement started.
The Constitution is the law the current government makes a mockery of the law. This election will be about those who want justice and liberty vs, status quo corruption. It is up to the people what they stand for. I know I stand with the people and the Constitution.

BAF 04/26/2013 at 9:04 AM

Mr. Dorsey:

It is wonderful that you “stand with the people and the Constitution.” It’s great that you have occupied lots of things per comment #29. But that does not answer any of the salient questions I laid out in comment #18. How are you going to do the things you propose without being held in contempt of court or held in dereliction of duty–thereby causing you to be removed from office and rendered ineffectual?

Alex 04/26/2013 at 10:54 AM

@27 – since he declined to answer it… the answer is yes.

I can’t decide if it’s a badge of honor to be kicked out of this group or not.

Alex 04/26/2013 at 11:00 AM

@26 – PIcasso Moon = head shop. Presumably named for the Grateful Dead song by that name. Seemed to sell mostly stuff like tie-dyed hemp clothing with a smattering of costumes.

Happy Corner = drug paraphenalia shop. Richmond’s finest collection of bongs, bowls and smoker supplies.

Was anyone expecting anything different?

Alex 04/26/2013 at 11:10 AM

@30 – I don’t think he’s bothered thinking that far ahead or seriously expects to win. This whole campaign seems to be more of an awareness play than a serious attempt at gaining office. (If that’s not the case, it should be)

Not that the other choices are that much better (Irving is the possible exception) but they’re much closer to the kind of mediocrity that Richmond generally prefers – inept and over their head, more of the same policies, connected to the local machine, etc.

Even a fool realizes that unless Dorsey has some of the local preachers in his back pocket, he’s got no chance of winning a city election. My guess is Woody will be re-elected in a landslide and nothing improves. Which is still a better outcome than moving towards the stoner-ocracy that Dorsey would bring…

Chris Dorsey 04/26/2013 at 12:22 PM

Alex, the writer of the article you posted is named JC Wilmore. There is a warrant out for his arrest because he attacked me by chocking me and banging my head against the flagpole at the Suntrust building before a Richmond Democratic Committee meeting. He wrote this article because I exposed his employer Wayne Powell for stealing from a co-atttorney named MR Lines. Powell was the Dem candidate for the 7th Congressional district. As one can see this video has been edited taking out parts documenting false statements made against me and exposing those leading the false accusations against me as drug addicts and paid political operatives. You can talk to the person who made the video- my friend Silver Persinger about the editing. The Sheriff is the top elected law enforcement position. In a conversation I had with 40 year RPD veteran Henry Mease the Sheriff has the authority to pull the RPD off the street. I will work hard, serve the people, uphold the Constitution, and end corruption through honesty and transparency. To answer your question BAF, the judge sentences and the Sheriff incarcerates- we will simply refuse to lock up those who have not committed a crime. In order for a crime to take place under the law there must be a injured party. In a Federal Court Case Harvey and dorsey v. Showalter et al I was granted Sovereignty over the 4th District US court in a memorandum sent by Judge John Gibney. This was a case in which Harvey, others and myself showed election fraud carried out by the Richmond Registrar, Richmond Electoral Board, and the VA State Board of Elections. If one wants more greedy and corrupt elected officials vote for my opponents if one wants honesty, dedication, justice, and freedom vote for me. It was nice to get the response from all. Thank you for your time. Peace

BAF 04/26/2013 at 12:46 PM


I agree that Mr. Dorsey’s whole platform appears to lack a consideration of the consequences of his proposals from a legal perspective. But that being said, perhaps he has a way around it I am not aware of. I would encourage him to present it, if so.

BAF 04/26/2013 at 1:24 PM

Mr. Dorsey:

Not being familiar with how a District Court Judge grants someone “sovereignty” over a higher court than their own, I took a moment to look up the case.

First, Judge Gibney’s order in the case is highly entertaining. I like where he writes “The Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument will not aid the decisional process.”

Second, it would appear that for have confused “sovereignty over the 4th District Court ” with “The Court grants the (defendants’) motions to dismiss.”

Unfortunately, while you appear to be someone who wants to help the community, this brings great clarity to why your platform is at odds with the very basics of how the legal system currently operates.

BAF 04/26/2013 at 1:25 PM

If anyone else would like to read the decision in Mr. Dorsey’s case, it may be found here:

spacecat 04/26/2013 at 3:58 PM

When will those who ‘govern’ dispense with the ‘big ideas’ and just run the store? Here’s what I want in a sheriff: Run the jail. Make sure the inmates don’t die mysteriously. NO nepotism. ( Are there no laws that prevent that in the Virginia statutes?) Basically, do your job. Keep it simple. Be honest. Dorsey strikes me as a man seeking power. Not that different from Woody, actually. He wants a little fiefdom to call his own. “Refuse to lock those up who have not committed a crime.”??? So at Mr. Dorsey’s personal discretion, he will decide who stays and who goes? Dude. Step back and listen to yourself. That is not tansparency. That is called ruling by fiat. And it’s what dictators do. OK, moving on…

edg 04/26/2013 at 5:28 PM

Mr. Dorsey has not presented an intelligent argument at all.

Alex 04/26/2013 at 11:19 PM

@38 – great points and well put. It’s not like being sheriff is rocket science. The court sentences them, you keep them locked up. Not that hard really.

Alex 04/27/2013 at 7:52 AM

Can we get the other three candidates in here please?

crd 04/27/2013 at 10:24 AM

Alex #32, many thanks for the clarification, and for giving me a reason to laugh this morning.

BAF #37, thanks to you for the link, I read the entire opinion and agree that Mr. Dorsey appears to have a problem with legal interpretation. Once I realized it was L. Shirley Harvey who was the other person involved as plaintiff, I had a different slant on it even before I finished reading the judge’s opinion. I will always remember her as having led a ‘prayer vigil’ atop the city hall observation deck in which she walked backwards and chanted in an effort to purge city hall of the demons she claimed were in residence, among the other entertaining things she did during her tenure.

Irving seems a good candidate, although she needs money and, yes, the preachers, behind her to have even a chance to win. I think she’s probably the only one who has a serious chance against Woody, as he seems to have become rather entrenched at this point, and the fact that she’s run before is actually a good thing as she knows what it’s going to take this time so maybe she’ll ramp it up.

Election is a long way off and all these people have to jump through a few hoops to even get on the ballot.

Unconvinced 04/30/2013 at 1:28 AM

Chris Dorsey’s a rightwing nut job with a crack habit and a penchant for assault. His concept of an election is screaming until everyone’s looking at him. What’s the criteria for being listed as a candidate here, just saying it enough?

Alex 04/30/2013 at 11:01 AM

@43 – interesting that you’d refer to him as “rightwing” when Occupy is generally thought of as the leftist version of the tea party. Any particular reason you came to this conclusion? Is it because you are left leaning and don’t want to have him associated with you?

The rest of that description I agree with but “left wing” and “right wing” are such sloppy descriptors and I usually find they reveal more about the person using than the person described.

Jeff E. 10/16/2013 at 1:30 PM

So this discussion was pretty involved at one point.. I hope this important issue surfaces again. I’m afraid with so many people running that Woody is going to manage to get re-elected and I’d prefer that didn’t happen.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.