https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/fbi-seizes-culpeper-sheriff-campaign-cash/3327144/

He was very outspoken as a gun rights supporter.  Not sure what federal crime he has committed

Interesting timing with Frederick Co, MD sheriff also catching legal heat…which sounds like a hit job.

They’ve been after him for a while.  https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/virginia-sheriffs-charity-potentially-violated-federal-tax-rules/2187975/?amp=1

Looks like the FBI is still using the SPLC to target victims.  

If only the media would investigate the Biden crime family to this extent.....

This is the same sheriff who said he would deputize the entire county to counter federal incursions.  

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Once worked a criminal investigation with him in the 90's. Great guy. Took some training classes at his range.

Hope this turns out okay for him.

He also has issues with his Auxiliary program. The county authorizes Jenkins to have 15 Aux. officers but, 46 were found. . DCJS training records can not be found for the majority of the deputies along with the fact that the Sheriff can not provide a single time sheet for any of the Aux. despite there being a required minimum of 16 hours per month. It is all in this article.

Auxiliary programs are an odd duck.  Depending on the level of auxiliary, training could be done in house and not reported  to DCJS.

These folks are not on payroll right?  You realize he can deputize anyone at any time.  The only sharks I know circling this are LEs that want his seat and hardcore leftists.  Do you really think he needs jail time over this???

In searches of court records, the I-Team found 46 auxiliary deputies appointed by Jenkins and sworn in by a circuit court judge. That is more than double the number of auxiliary deputies authorized by a Culpeper County ordinance “not to exceed fifteen (15) percent of the paid force.”

NOT PAID!  So no law is broken.  Kinda weird that FBI would lean in on this.....ETA it's not even a federal law they can enforce.

That is possible but, since there is no mention of the Aux. program on the S.O. website, it leaves questions. Since the general orders from the Sheriff state the Aux. deputies will get the same equipment as the full time deputies it is not a huge leap to think that they will get a firearm and firearm training. All firearm training, even done at the department level, is transmitted to DCJS so there should be a record of something. The fact that he has 46 deputized deputies and only 5 have any kind of equipment at all, makes it look like a good old boy network where I deputize you and you get all of the benefits but, don't work or earn those benefits, and I am not talking money when I say benefits. The article bring a lot of question that the Sheriff has decided not to answer. Whether he is in the right or not, it is not a good look for an elected official.

I know they don't draw a paycheck but, the county has to pay for insurance for each of these people inc case they get injured on the job so, there is some financial cost here. While he may be able to deputize anyone he wants, the county ordinance that he has to work under says 15 and no more. Please show me were I stated he should go to jail.

I have seen some really good Aux. programs in Virginia and some that need a lot of work. Do you really want the Sheriff to deputize his buddies so they can have a badge to flash and that's it? Did you read the article? There is a Aux. deputy that has a felony on his record. That is not the kind of character I want in a person with a badge. Poorly run aux. programs hurt the entire LE field, not the the Aux. component of LE.

Why does a paycheck matter? All 46 people are employees of the county regardless of there status to draw a paycheck. If you get shot by a Aux. officer or deputy, you are still suing the dept. because that aux. officer or deputy is an employee of that department, right?

The S.O. I work for requires all auxilary deputies to meet the same basic training requirements of paid, full time staff.  That is the way it is supposed to be for any full time or aux deputy/officer who has the powers of arrest.  You can't give a badge, gun and the power to arrest to anyone who hasn't been through mandated DCJS training.  In this day and age it would be stupid to do so.  The liability an agency would assume is huge.

No sure what exactly is going on up in Culpeper but it sounds like a mess.  I like the sheriff's Second Amendment stance but what I'm reading about the aux program sounds .

ETA-  I have a lot of respect for the aux guys in our agency.  They give up three nights/days a week for over a year just to complete the academy requirements.  All for the high salary of zip.

There are 4 levels of auxiliaries, with training requirements graduated based on responsibilities.  The lowest doesn’t even require firearms training.  

The GA just created a new level, for officers called up solely for ECO/TDO transport and specifically restricted the training that could be required, so agencies have the option to supplement with minimally trained folks.  They’re authorized to carry (after training) but don’t have to meet near the training a full fledged LEO does.  

Again, they’re an odd duck.

$ is a huge issue. You are determined how many paid positions you can have based on population.  If an aux cop is volunteer they do not meet the legal definition of employee, but let's back up.  What are we calling an Aux officer here?   Many, to include myself were vetted by the CCSO. I have not served in any capacity.  Where does Auxiliary roster and the right to deputize anyone at anytime balance out?  It's just odd, that supposedly freedom loving LE hate this man so much and want him in jail.....I've met quite a few lately.   Not understanding you guys....but if that's it, you are apart of the witchhunt.

I don’t know the guy.

From that article, it looks like some shady stuff is going on with the auxiliary deputies, but I’m curious if it’s good old boy stuff or “Just deputize anyone in the spirit of the 2A” or bad record keeping. Of course, I would assume his 2A stance drew someone’s attention.

Does anyone have a code section that details how a sheriff can deputize someone? I found the regulations on the different types of reserve/ auxiliary officers and deputies.

@Panta_Rei
Please show me were I said I want him in jail. I never said that nor did I hint at it. You made a hell of a jump from my comments to yours.

All i said was that some questions were raised that I would like to see some answers to because it looks like a good old boy network and not sworn officers doing a job. Why does he have 46 Aux. Deputies when by county code he can only have 15. Why do the majority not have any equipment at all since his general orders say they will be equipped the same as the full time Deputies. Without equipment they can not do the job so, what are they doing? How can he in good faith hire someone for a sworn job with a felony on his record? Why does one of his Aux. Deputies live out of state?

15.2-1603 and 1609.1.  

You know the old joke about the difference between a federal judge and God?  Replace judge with sheriff, and you have your answers.

Thanks!


From 2020:

On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Sheriff Scott Jenkins sits down with me to talk about some of the details of his plan, including the fact that Culpeper County residents aren’t the only ones who’ll be eligible to become a reserve deputy. Jenkins tells me that while residents will go to the front of the line when they apply for the position, legal gun owners from throughout the state will be able to become a reserve deputy, which presumably would place them outside of the reach of Northam’s proposed gun ban.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2020/07/22/sheriff-deputize-armed-citizens-n38511

Not a big jump, you challenged me along time ago about the police state comment.  I'm not even sure our oaths bind us.....you're too NOVA minded and regardless of where you stand on penalities, absolutely have it in for the Sheriff.  Understand this:  the Sheriff can deputize anyone!  Stay in NOVA!

ETA:  Hopefully for clarity......the issue discussed isn't federal, so hope we can agree the Fed needs to drop it.   The numbers are murky, does anyone vetted, but never even participated included?  Understand there were flat out lies about background checks/proficiency and I am coming at you hard b/c it's the LEO drama mamas of past Sheriffs that running with information they know is inaccurate.  Why does someone not in the County care so much?  I'm hoping you are not one of the rotten LEOs so eager to run with lies. Statists abound.  Yes, my friend we have a police state.

You don't know me and have now stated what I want and you are 100% wrong. Let me clear a few things up for you. I do not know Sheriff Jenkins, have never met him or any of his deputies and I have nothing against the man. I have never stated nor hinted that I want him in jail or out of a job, contrary to you saying this is what I want. I do not have it in for him as you said. I have said this to you but, I will say it again. Based on the article I linked to, it appears he has a poorly run Aux. program and that needs to be looked into. He is authorized by county code to have 15 Aux. Deputies but, he has 40+ so the questions is why is he over his allotted staffing? Each Deputy, Aux. or full time, are covered by the Sheriff's insurance in case they get hurt on the job or hurt someone else. So why are county residents paying taxes that are going toward payments for insurance coverage for people that are not doing what they were sworn in to do? Per the article, only a few of the 40+ have any kind of equipment, so what are these people doing? One of the sworn Aux. Deputies has a felony, you really want a Deputy(Aux. or full time) with a felony on his record enforcing law? Would that not go against the good moral character requirement that all departments have in place? Heck, one of the sworn Aux. Deputies does not live in state so, what benefit does Culpepper get from having that individual as a sworn Aux. Deputy?

I am not Nova minded at all. LE in general has gone through a lot in the last few years and the last thing the profession needs is a black eye from what appears to be a good old boy network. If the Sheriff can not run an effective Aux. program, the Aux. program should be disbanded and save the tax payers the money on the insurance payments so the money can be better spent else where.

I find it interesting that you are making all of these assumptions about me based on a comment from, and I am quoting you, a long time ago. Show me anywhere in this thread that I have called for Sheriff Jenkins to be fire or put in jail because you have made the comment stating what is what I want. I'll wait here for you to quote me were I said I wanted that or hinted at it.

Understand that while the Sheriff can legal deputize anyone he wants, there are still local restrictions based on authorized size of force and department polices that might limit who is eligible based on the individuals background. The Sheriffs power is not unlimited.

I do agree the feds have no dog in the fight and should not be looking into this, it is out of there jurisdiction of work.

Well, the Sheriff and a few others have been indicted on bribery and wire fraud charges.

Time will tell if he did it or not.

https://www.nbc29.com/2023/06/29/indictment-unsealed-charging-culpeper-sheriff-three-other-men-with-conspiracy/?outputType=amp&_YwKanb9H6kT9tubMgSZGZHUQ8wrMFADCrOUox2c_No1ttRtas

The FBI didn't charge until after he announced.....ironic?

In Culpeper the Dems and former sheriff deputies are out for blood though.   They deserve each other.

Ironic? I don't think so.

It takes time to build a case. There seems to be enough evidence to go to trial. He is over staffed for his Aux. squad per county rules and most of those Aux. don't have training, gear or uniforms so there is no way they can work as deputies. One of the sworn is a felon who listed the sheriff's brothers house as his residence when it looks like he was not living in the county on his firearms restoration request. There is one Aux. who lives on the other side of the country and 2 undercover agents that paid him for positions.

I am not sure why you are going to the mat for the guy, maybe is a friend of yours. It is not looking good for him.

It’s getting pretty damn old that the FBI only goes after vocal conservatives.

Maybe the sheriff is breaking the law, they need to put him on the back burner and arrest Hunter.  But they won’t.  So fuck them and their investigations.

I'm just trying to find out what you know that we don't.   The whole aux thing remains ambiguous and isn't even a fed issue.  Again all I hear are Branch Deputies, yourself and dems talking up why we need to take him down.  So much hear say.....prove it and throw the book at him, but until then I'm trusting your position about as much as the FBI.

ETA:  do you realize how crazy it looks having a 2A LEO here seemingly want a vocal 2A rural sheriff to be brought down by basically anything the FBI says without proof?  Let's be more objective, have the FBI stay in their lane and let the cards fall where they may.

I agree that the govt. going after conservative people is getting old and is not only unfair but, I would venture to say illegal. My point is this, if we let anyone on the conservative side slide with doing something wee know is illegal, then we are no better then the other side and are simply hypocrites. We have to set the example of how to do it right then call out the other side and force them to do the right thing.

If you read the articles I linked too, then you know what I do. Once the article stated that the Sheriff was being looked at for bribery, I pay you X dollars and I get a spot on your Aux. squad, then I can see were the FBI is investigating. They are no longer outside of there lane. Trust me or not, I could care less. We are in a free society were I can post my opinion publicly just like you can. If you want proof, wait for the trial and everything the FBI has will be shown.

As for the after thought, I have not been LEO for almost 2 decades. I have no idea what the sheriff's stance is on 2A or anything else. The only thing that concerns me is him putting a black eye on the industry. LE has gone through a lot in the last few years. The majority of officers out there at the local, state and federal level are good people doing a good job. There are some that have a badge and for varying reasons should not, and those people are the ones that make the news. You don't see on the news the officers that run across a kid that has his bike stolen and the cops buy the kid a new bike, or the cops that get out and play a quick pick up game of ball with some local kids, the cops that come by after there shift to help out the little old lady that they did a welfare check on earlier in the day. Those stores are real and the media does not report on them so all you hear is the negative. So if the sheriff was doing a play to play, then i want him out. If this was all fabricated and he did none of it then i have no problem with him being in office. Just think about it though, if a journalist can dig up all that info on what is not right with his Aux. squad, then there might just be something there and there should be an investigation. Your problem is that you don't trust LE and never will. For whatever reason you have lost faith in the industry, which I get seeing all the neg out there. I have lost faith in the command staff of LE but, I still trust the boots on the ground. At this point you and I will never see eye to eye on anything LE related and that is fine. Just stop putting out there "what I want" because not only do you not know me you are wrong about what I want. How about you stay in your lane and tell people what YOU want and leave me out of it, OK?

So we police our own, culling out those who break the law, while they circle their wagons and double down on the righteousness of their cause.  It's been that way for decades, and no amount of pointing out their hypocrisy has changed things.  It's to the point where they are openly laughing about the double standards, yet you seem to think that by throwing a very vocal supporter of the 2A under the bus, for allegations from the FBI- the freaking FBI- have you been paying attention to the last 6 years of FBI bungling- we have the moral high ground.  That does a lot of good as we get picked off one by one, while the likes of Schiff, Swallwell, Clinton, and Biden continue to walk free.  

How do you propose we "force them to do the right thing?" Shaming them sure as heck will not work, they have no shame.

Did a journalist dig this up, or did the FBI (or one of his political opponents) leak it to a journalist to attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion?

So as long as they are a staunch of gun rights and only commit crimes that we deem acceptable, that’s ok? I get what you’re saying in that the other side does not play by the rules, so why should we, but that is not America. If we excuse one person from committing a crime, it shouldn’t be a crime in the first place. If we’re excusing this (supposed) pay to play scheme, then it needs to be struck down as an illegal activity and made legal. Do I find it irritating a brand new LEO can carry almost everywhere while I can’t? Sure, but I find it even more irritating for a faux-LEO paying money to get that right because they know the right person.

No it's not acceptable.  There's nothing worse than a dirty cop when it comes to actually trying to enforce the law.  What I'm saying is we shouldn't be too quick to throw our own under the bus, especially when the allegations- and that's all these are- are coming from an agency whose credibility is suspect at best.  

So your plan is to be just as dirty and illegal as they are? And how will that benefit anyone? It wil just produce more corrupt politicians on both sides.

You want to know how to fix it? It is a very simple idea that will be very hard to do.

1. Keep the moral high ground and go after anyone that breaks the law, including our own
2. Conservatives need to get out and vote.
3. Once we have a house we need all conservatives to vote for pro conservative bills

The first step is done. The hard part is 2 and 3. Conservatives just don't turn out the way liberals do. They have gotten really good about getting there people to come vote for them even though there ideas and policies are not doing them any good. They are also excellent at voting for there own parties bills. We have a tendency to vote in squishy conservatives that vote for liberal bills. We need solid conservatives out there as a choice and we need to vote them into office. Once we have that, wee have a chance to take back both houses and that is were we force them to do what we want. It is even better if we also get the president/vice president or  Governor/Lieutenant Governor.

So it is possible to keep the moral high ground and win, it just won't be easy.

As for the FBI, I don't write them off totally but I also don't trust them outright. If I understood the articles correctly the journalist did his/her own investigation and is not just puppeting the FBI talking points. That does lend SOME credibility to FBI narrative for me. If you look at the Aux. program on face value, take the journalist and FBI out of it for a minute, the program is extremely poorly run. We have other local departments running successful Aux. programs. Fredericksburg had a successful program for decades until chief Nye was voted in and killed the program. He was anti-auxillary and did nothing to promote the program so as people left there were not more people to fill the roles and the program died off. Spotsy and Stafford both have Reserve programs that have been going for decades and are still operating today. So having 3x the number of Aux. deputies that you are authorized for with only a few that have some uniform and/or equipment and no training records or time sheets shows that the Sheriff is not serious about his program. So that lends me to ask the question why do you have a Aux. program is you are not serious about it? There is no benefit to the citizens of of his county so why do it? One answer is a good old boy network were the sheriff's friends can carry a badge without doing any of the work. Another answer is pay for play as has been the alligation here.

I have no idea if this was leaked by the FBI or not. My understanding is the journalist did there own work so even if they got tipped off by the FBI, the reporting does appear to be solid. My opinion would change if the journalist was simply using the FBI talking points for the case. The fact the the FBI is talking about pay for play and the articles don't talk about that and instead are asking about training, uniforms/gear, a felon on the squad etc.... lends me to believe the journalist did there own work on this.

Point to the articles that came out before the feds seized his money.

When was the money seized?

Also, even if the money was seized before the articles came out how does that change the fact that the articles don't mention the money or pay for play? The articles I linked talk about everything but the money.

Gosh, the feds would never engage in a coordinated, multi pronged political hit on an outspoken opponent, would they?  They'd never use the media as willing vectors for damaging information.  They'd never leak information about an investigation, especially if it related to things they couldn't charge, but looked bad.

Not the agency that spent years peddling a load of known lies to take down a president.  They must be on the up and up and any allegations must be accepted at face value and when they accuse a conservative of something, we should show what good lap dogs we are and demand their immediate ouster.  

Nice ideas, but not too realistic, given the make up of the electorate.  

The purity test LE here apply to one but not the others is disgusting and you are all the most rabid and accepting of the FBI's misconduct. Police state thugs.

Let's take a look at the alternates.   We've seen a lot of frankly damning information come out in the last two days regarding one of the candidates running for Culpeper County Sheriff, who said it was nothing more than "political propaganda." We deserve the truth. Here's what we know so far as reported in the Washington Post - five former Stafford County sheriff's deputies were investigated by Prince William County authorities in 2001 for "allegedly stealing and using cocaine and steroids that had been seized during criminal investigations, and all five deputies were quickly removed from their posts after the thefts were discovered in late September and that they no longer work in the department." Then Stafford County Sheriff's Deputy Tim Chilton, the candidate in question, was separated from the Stafford County Sheriff's Office September 20, 2001. The events seem to line up and they are supported by recent statement from the Chief Deputy of the Culpeper County Sheriff's Office. A link to the Washington Post article is below. This is deeply troubling and raises serious, serious questions. It appears to be much more than "political propaganda......and then we have Baughn, the deputy that had to withdraw b/c she needlessly killed an old lady a year ago.  Won't comment yet on the last candidate as I haven't done the research. Ultimately, an LEO calling out the Sheriff, ignoring the other candidates, and rooting for the FBI is a hypocrite.

ETA - link: Washington Post

I am not ready to give up on doing the right thing.

Care to tell us who specifically this was for?