This bill still needs a lot of work. Since it does not specifically say it is limited to "living persons" it is not. Again, there is no such thing as "legislative intent" in Virginia. There is only the law. And, if it doesn't plainly say it, it doesn't do it. There is no definition of "historic" or "geneological" so those are purely open to interpretation by the official holding the record. Anyone with an interest in historical or genealogical research, who has tried to access old documents, can tell stories about that "can of worms." To answer your question, the Library of Virginia is a state agency under most official definitions, including the one that specifically applies to this bill. (There are many kinds of agencies. We know that the Library is "special" but the Code does not.) Because of where this new language is placed in the Code, the applicable definition is found in § 2.2-3801: "6. "Agency" means any agency, authority, board, department, division, commission, institution, bureau, or like governmental entity of the Commonwealth or of any unit of local government including counties, cities, towns and regional governments and the departments and including any entity, whether public or private, with which any of the foregoing has entered into a contractual relationship for the operation of a system of personal information to accomplish an agency function. Any such entity included in this definition by reason of a contractual relationship shall only be deemed an agency as relates to services performed pursuant to that contractual relationship, provided that if any such entity is a consumer reporting agency, it shall be deemed to have satisfied all of the requirements of this chapter if it fully complies with the requirements of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act as applicable to services performed pursuant to such contractual relationship." The only modification to this definition in the bill is that it applies only to "state agencies" not to local ones. This bill is premature. The legislative study which is looking at this issue has completed one year's work and it being continued to complete its work. Delegate Nixon, the patron of HB 2426 bill, understands this, as he is a member of that study. The study is taking a cautious approach, to balance all the competing needs and interests. Please note that the Chairman of that study, Delegate Devolites, opposed this bill on the floor and voted against it. If you wish your opinions to be heard on this bill, the next group to hear it will be the Senate Committee on General Laws -- http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?031+com+S6 followed by the full Senate of Virginia (if it is reported by the committee) -- http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/$$Viewtemplate%2Bfor%2BWSenateDistricts?OpenForm Rosie > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: [VAALBEMA] House bill 2426- new information > Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 02:32:41 +0000 > From: familytr@att.net > To: VAALBEMA-L@rootsweb.com <clipped> > > As you can see it does not mention in particular living persons though I am > sure that is whose rights they are trying to protect. > > I still need to check with LVA to see if this affects(though I doubt it) what > old info on our ancestors they have on the net. > > When they say state agency though I believe they mean actual agencies of the > state like DMV, health department, etc. I don't believe the library is > considered an agency. It is really the state archives. > > Just thought I would update you all on this. I would think this would have to > go to the state senate now. > > God bless, > Beth > familytr@att.net

Hi all, Well I wrote as I told you to Delegate Sam Nixon this past Friday and HB2426 and still have received no response. However I checked out the bill apparently in late January there was a substitute accepted and the house voted on February 1 in the affirmative for this substitute version which is aas follows: 030940904 HOUSE BILL NO. 2426 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by the House Committee on General Laws on January 28, 2003) (Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Nixon) A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 2.2-3808.2, relating to posting certain information on the Internet; prohibitions. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 2.2-3808.2 as follows: § 2.2-3808.2. Posting certain information on the Internet; prohibitions. A. Beginning July 1, 2003, no state agency or court clerk shall post on a state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) the maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and age of any minor child. B. Every agency and every court clerk that posts any document on a state agency or court-controlled website may require that any party who files documents in any form with such agency or clerk provide, in addition to the original document, a redacted copy of such documents that excises the information prohibited by subsection A. Failure to provide such redacted copy shall relieve the agency or court clerk of any liability or responsibility in the event that such information is posted on a state agency or court-controlled website. Each such agency and clerk shall post notice that (i) includes a list of the documents routinely posted on its website, (ii) the information listed in subsection A shall be redacted from such documents, and (iii) such documents are for informational purposes only. Such notice shall indicate the location of the original document. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit access to any original document as provided by law. As you can see it does not mention in particular living persons though I am sure that is whose rights they are trying to protect. I still need to check with LVA to see if this affects(though I doubt it) what old info on our ancestors they have on the net. When they say state agency though I believe they mean actual agencies of the state like DMV, health department, etc. I don't believe the library is considered an agency. It is really the state archives. Just thought I would update you all on this. I would think this would have to go to the state senate now. God bless, Beth familytr@att.net

Have you read or do you have access to Benjamin B. Weisiger III's 1987 publication, "Albemarle County Virginia Court Papers 1744-1783" ? It is currently offered by Iberian Publ. Co. (on-line) for $12.95. it's a small book with small font and packed with information. Some useful for genealogy. In his Introduction Weisiger states his sources were several large boxes of loose court papers from Albemarle County, now in the State Archives. The Index has 28 referrals to HARRIS - incl. 1 HARRISS. Given names are Ben, Benjamin, Christopher, Jo, John, John (Jr.), Lee, Mary, Overton, Richard, Robert, William, (& Joseph Harriss). On p. 13 re the 1754 Folder: a William Harris is identified as "one of His Majesty's Justices for Albemarle County" in the complaint of Ralph Jopling vs. Joseph Blair for debt. On p. 14 re the 1754 Folder: a William Harris was the only witness in Bond of John Harvie and Benjamin Harris to John Wheeler; attachment 12 May, 1749. A question: Did Justice William Harris have a wife and family on or before 1754? Hope this is useful for something or other in the quest. Bill Hunt ----- Original Message ----- From: <SCBC@aol.com> To: <VAALBEMA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [VAALBEMA] William Harris (d. ca 1776) of Albemarle Co., VA > In reference to William Harris, born March 16, 1751/52, died before 1812 in Albemarle County, Virginia...son of Major Robert Harris...

Thought anyone doing Genealogy Research would find this site interesting. http://www.animatedatlas.com/movie.html

In reference to William Harris, born March 16, 1751/52, died before 1812 in Albemarle County, Virginia...son of Major Robert Harris... This William just may have had 2 wives?? William Harris is 22+ years older than Hannah Jameson who was born April 25, 1774. The land William is purchasing with an Elizabeth in 1774 is the same year Hannah Jameson is born. Hannah Jameson's birth is proved by her mother, Margaret Craig Jameson's Bible records which were submitted for Revolutionary War pension. >...we cannot identify Samuel Harris, Overton Harris and James Harris.  A James Harris is said to have married Mary, the daughter of Robert Harris and is verified to have been son-in-law of Major Robert Harris.  James left a will in Albemarle Co. dated 5 Feb 1792.  Are Samuel and Overton Harris brothers of James Harris, the groom of Mary?  < A James Wiley Harris married Elizabeth Jameson, sister to Hannah Jameson in 1799 in Alb. Co. This James is the son of James and Betsy Harris, but this is all I know. Overton Harris may be the son of Christopher and Agnes McCord Harris. This Overton Harris married Nancy Oldham. Christopher and Agnes McCord also had a son named Samuel Harris, b. 1777 married Nancy Wilkerson and a James Harris, b. Abt 1770 married Susannah Gass. There was also a son-in-law to Major Robert Harris, James Harris who married Major Robert Harris' daughter, Mary Harris. I do not know the parentage of this James Harris. >James left a will in Albemarle Co. dated 5 Feb 1792.  Are Samuel and Overton Harris brothers of James Harris, the groom of Mary?  < I would suspect this James Harris, in fact I feel certain this James Harris, is the son-in-law to Major Robert Harris that married Mary Harris, aunt to Overton and Samuel through brother Christopher and Agnes McCord Harris. If you ever get this straight, please please let me know so our gedcoms can be the same. I hope the above may help some?? Now, I'm all confused <gbg>. Thank you! Brenda Clark Albemarle Co., VA

Dear Harris Hunters & others, Do you know of the two reported marriages of William Harris, son of Major Robert Harris and his wife Mourning? Here are some of my notes: WILLIAM HARRIS SON OF ROBERT HARRIS, MAJOR. Little is known of William Harris, reportedly born Nov 1752. He reportedly died before 1777, according to the Albemarle Co. deed cited below. William was seemingly under age or ill when his father Major Robert Harris wrote his will in June 1765. According to Malcolm Hart Harris, his first wife was a Miss Michie. Another account states his wife was Hannah Jameson, which we believe is an error. The Albemarle Co. deed cited below involving his brother Chirstopher indicates his widow was Elizabeth. At any rate, he is reported to have died in 1776. More research is needed. Robert Harris's (abstracted) will (W.B. 3-165) in Louisa Co. reads as follows: 18 June 1765. I August 1765. Son Christopher to have 40 acres of land in Albemarle County, known as "Bears Cornfield." After decease of wife, son William to have all land I now hold in Albemarle County. Sons, Robert, Tyre and William Harris to have slaves. Wife Mowrning (Mourning) to have use of all lands during her life. Son William [who probably was underage] to be under direction of son-in-law John Rodes. Exrs: sons-in-law John Rodes and William Shelton. Wit: Daniel Maupin, John Mullins, Jr, William Maupin and Connerly Mullins. (Rosalie Edith Davis, LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED BOOKS A AND B, 1742-1759 [Bellevue, WA, 1976] shows many Harris males involved in land transactions in that county. Perhaps these Harrises were related because their names appear often in conjunction with others who are related to female lines, i.e., Rice, Dabney, Glen.) We believe, but cannot prove, that this patent may apply to the son of Maj. Robert Harris of Louisa Co. We know from other land records that the Harrises owned land near Moorman's River in Albemarle Co. Patent Bk 42-633: William Harris, 211 acs. Albemarle Co. on the S side of Pasture fence Mountain on some of the Eastern brs. of Moremans Riv., adj his own line; 5 Jul 1774, p. 633, 1 pd. 5 Shillings. (Dennis Ray Hudgins, CAVALIERS & PIONEERS, V. 7 [Richmond: Virginia Genealogical Society], p. 346) In December 2002, one correspondent states that William Harris with wife Henrietta [unknown] is the son of Robert Harris, but we cannot verify this union from the following abstracted deed, which is signed acknowledged by a William Harris with a wife named Elizabeth. Question: Did Elizabeth have two names, or are these distinctly different wives? Furthermore, we cannot identify Samuel Harris, Overton Harris and James Harris. A James Harris is said to have married Mary, the daughter of Robert Harris and is verified to have been son-in-law of Major Robert Harris. James left a will in Albemarle Co. dated 5 Feb 1792. Are Samuel and Overton Harris brothers of James Harris, the groom of Mary? Because of the late date of this deed--1786--this person seems NOT to be the same as Robert Harris's son William who died ca. 1776-1777, as indicated in an Albemarle Co. deed cited below. Why is one of the grantors named Hennaretta, and yet the deed is signed by a woman named Elizabeth Harris? Did the transcriber make an error, or did the county clerk assign the wrong name--a not unusual occurrence, my experience reveals? Louisa Co. DB F-150-151 5 Oct 1786 William Harris & Hennaretta his wife of Louisa Co. to Manoah Lasley of same; 9 pds; 48 1/2 a. on north east side of Long Cr. bounded by lands of Menoah Lasley, William Harress & John Boswell. William Harris Elizabeth Harris Wit: Samuel Harris, James (X) Harris, Overton Harris (Rosalie Edith Davis, LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED BOOKS E & F, 1774-1790 [Manchester, MO: Privately published, 1983] p. 60) An earlier Louisa Co. deed specifies that one William Harris has a wife named Elizabeth. Louisa Co. DB E-238-239, 9 Mar 1778 William Harris & Elizabeth his wife of Louisa Co. to David Bigger of sd. Co.; 200 pds.; 100 a. on the south side the North Anna River... Parson Douglass corner on the river...Wm. Harris' line...Thomas Graves line...Thomas Harris line Wit: none William (+) Hrris Elizabeth (X) Harris 9 Mar 1778 ack. by William Harris & Elizabeth his wife (Davis, p. 27) William Harris, son of Robert Harris, apparently died ca 1777, as indicated by a deed executed with his widow Elizabeth and his brother Christopher Harris and Christopher's then wife (Agnes McCord), cited below. Is he the William Harris who appears in this Albemarle Co. deed? The association with a male Mechie suggests that he is the same person. Albemarle Co. DB 5-188,189: [blank] day of [blank] 1770 between William Mechie of Fredericksville Par. and Albemarle Co. & William Harris of same... 60 pds. 150 acres .. n. side of Mechams River ... Robert Lewis's line... /s/ William Mechie Ackd by William Mechie at Albemarle June court 1770 (Adapted from Ruth & Sam Sparacio, DEED ABSTRACTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1768-1770 [McLean, VA: The Antient Press, 1990], p. 95) Albemarle Co. DB 5-312-313 12 Nov 1770 William Clark and Frances his wife of county of Albemarle and Parish of Fredericksville to William Harris of above county & parish for 57 pds. one shilling & three pence ... 336 acres ... upper side of Meachams River .. John Mechie's line William Clark Frances her mark X Clark Wit: Nonan Mills, Benjamin Clark, John Rodes At Albemarle May Court 1771 proved by oaths of Nonan Mills, Benjamin Clark & John Rodes (Adapted from Ruth & Sam Sparacio, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEEDS AND WILLS, 1768-1772, PART II [McLean VA: The Antient Press, 19??] p. 23) Because there is an association with a John Rodes, whose wife was Sarah Harris, a daughter of Major Robert Harris, and because the land is on Mechum's River, we suspect the William Harris of Albemarle Co. is the more likely candidate to have been son of Robert Harris. The name of the widow of William Harris--Elizabeth--appears in a 1777 deed in Albemarle Co Deed Bk 1776-1782, p. 56-58. Abstracted, the deed reads: 8 May 1777 between Christopher Harris and Agnes, his wife, and Elizabeth Harris, the widow of William Harris deced. all of Albemarle Co. to Thomas Garth - two parcels of land 150 acres on N. side of Mechum's River and 336 acres on both sides of Mecham's River ... Albemarle Co. Old Line .. John Michie's ln.... said Elizabeth his widow and said Christopher his Brother and Heir, and said Elizabeth his Widow and said Christopher his Brother and Heir .. Elizabeth .. possessed of one third part of each of the parcels of land as of her Dower of the Estate ... and Christopher .. as brother and Heir to said William ... remaining two thirds of each of the parcels and is also entitled to a Reversion after the death of said Elizabeth whensoever the same shall happen... Now the said Christopher Harris and Agnes his Wife and said Elizabeth in consideration of ... 100 pounds .. convey to Thomas Garth in fee simple ... two tracts of land containing by estimation 486 acres. (no witnesses recorded) Christopher Harris Agness Harris Elizabeth Harris (Adapted from Ruth & Sam Sparacio, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEEDS 1776-1778 [McLean, VA: The Antient Press, 1997] pp. 27-29) Apparently, there are two William Harrises with a wife named Elizabeth, one who had died by 1777 as indicated in the Albemarle Co. deed cited above, and one who was very much alive in 1778 in Louisa Co. as indicated in the Louisa Co. deed. Or, conceivably the 1778 deed was recorded after William's death. Corrections and additions are welcomed. Submitted by E.W.Wallace PS If you use this material in your own research, please add the citations--as good genealogists should do.

Our tax dollars doing some great work! http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/loan/illscanhome.html Now, if only we can get them to send email notices of when they add stuff or when they rotate it. Diane

This came from the Missouri List: I thought my fellow family history researchers might like a heads-up on a recently proposed piece of legislature that could limit access to what is now public information. I have yet to make up my own mind on the merits of this bill. Some give and take from the list might prove fruitful: Missouri State Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer,R-St. Elizabeth, has authored HB72, which would prevent public access to some military records on file with county recorders of deeds, for 50 years from the date of filing. The proposed goal of the bill is to prevent identity theft. The bill would restrict access to the former service member, certain relatives such as a spouse or next of kin, and legal representatives. The bill would block access to DD-214 forms, discharge or separation notices, certificates of service, or reports of transfer or discharge, which veterans may have filed with county recorders for federal benefits or loans. These records are currently subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law. According to an article in the Jan. 29 edition of the Jefferson City News Tribune, The Missouri Press Association opposes the proposed legislation, fearing it could lead to further restrictions on public information. The following link to Rep. Luetkemeyer's web site provides access to the entire text of the legislation, plus and Email address and other contact numbers for the Representative. http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/member/mem115.htm Walt Klein Jefferson City, MO

See Virginia is not the only place to have these problems, however we are fortunate in that the records that once were available online were available ,last I heard ,on E-bay in the form of CA birth and death records for about $45. 00 for 5 CDs.In our case I tried to follow the whole thing and even wrote our CA legislators but even the argument about the worst kinds of theft of identity came from home and car burglaries and purse and wallet theft did not dissuade our governor Davis from signing the law that goes into full effect on 1 July 2003. SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN Sacramento, CA http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=purplevw1&I11.x=17&I11.y =7 http://www.progenealogists.com/genealogysleuthb.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: <SheleeBebo@aol.com> To: <CA-DEATH-INDEX-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [CADI] SB1614 - Unknown/Possible Relatives > Until 1 July 2003 there is no restriction on who may order a certified death > certificate. Some counties are still allowing free transcripitons. I'm not > sure if the county in which you are interested might be one of those. > > The points you bring up illustrate the problems with the new legislation, > both 1614 and 247. You will be required, on 1 July 2003, to either sign an > affidavit of relationship if you appear in person to request a document at > the County, or to provide a notarized statement that you are related to the > necessary degree if you choose to order a document by mail. The information > I have to date (and this is a changing scene at this point) is that the > affidavit form should be finalized sometime in April in anticipation of 1 > July 2003. > > **Alternatively, and this is not clear, you (if not directly related) appear > to be able to pay for an "informational copy" of the record which will have > removed from it the mother's maiden name and any social security numbers. > You will still have to sign an affidavit agreeing not to use this > informational copy for illegal purposes.** > > If you read the language of the statutes, you will see that if you violate > the provisions of the laws you can be subject to fines of $1000 per violation > and jail time. You may also be subject to losing access to California vital > records forever. I'm not an attorney, and you might wish to consult one to > determine whether the action you are questioning might lead to these > repercussions. > > If you will not sign the affidavit stating that you are related to the person > for whom you seek the document, you are not likely to get that unexpurgated > document. The counties are required to keep copies of the requests. > > Realistically, how can a recorder's office employee determine that you are in > fact related to the person for whom you seek the document? They don't have > time to perform a pedigree analysis when you are standing at the counter. > That is why YOU are taking the burden of proof on yourself when you sign the > affidavit. > > The costs of producing the new indices vary by county, depending on what they > had previously been using. Ultimately over the next 4 years or so the State > will be providing all of the record copies which are issued, and this is > supposed to result in a reduction of fees. > > However, I don't think the future is written in stone at this point. There > are several parties concerned and impacted by this legislation who are > researching ways to amend or challenge it. > > Alternative ways to prove relationship will have to be utilized by the > genealogist. The loss of the mother's maiden name as provided on vital > records is a big problem, but prior to the advent of online genealogy we > researchers had to work in a more painstaking manner to document direct and > collateral relationships, utilizing every available source. This should > still be the procedure, as opposed to the reliance on obits and death > certificates to extend our pedigrees. > > --Sheila P. > > > In a message dated 1/30/03 9:42:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > desrx@mybluelight.com writes: > > > The issue I am going to address may have already been discussed. If not then > > perhaps for the powers that be in legal discusssions. The matter came up as > > I was looking locally for an obit of a person for someone who thinks it > > MIGHT be her grandmother. At the half way point in checking, there is no > > obit. The person asked how they might learn more about this person and of > > course my immeidate thought is GET THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. > > > > This brings up how or can one request a record if one is not certain of the > > connection. In the past we of course used these very documents to confirm > or > > dismiss in our genealogical pursuit. If I think X is my grandmother or > great > > grandmother do I request the record and list myself as grandchild or great > > grandchild supposedly eligible to receive such a 'protected' document. And > > if she is not, then can I be charged with perjury and fraud? > > > > On the other hand if I request the record and inform the recorder/clerk > that > > I THINK she maybe my direct relative but am not sure, will he/she deny my > > request because I cannot state for certainity that she is my direct > > ancestor? And what about the fee? In the past the fee was to SEARCH for a > > particular document in a particular time period. Will I be charged now to > > determine eligiblity for a record as well (before you laugh - this is > > California where they add new meaning to 'government is a license to > > steal')? > > > > For that matter will the cost of documents be reduced in the future? From > my > > understanding, CA already had a records index(es). The increased fee is > > suppose to cover the costs of recooping the establishment of the new index. > > Once that amount has been recooped in new fees should not the fees be > > reduced? > > > > On a related observation, the KCBS TV news station (channel 2, Los Angeles) > > was going over the new laws on the 1st or 2nd of January. The report noted > > the increased document fees and attributed it (in the usual authoritative > > fashion) to the state's 'budget' crisis without any mention of SB1614 or > the > > new restrictions. > > > > Michael McTeer > > 29 Palms, CA > > > > > ==== CA-DEATH-INDEX Mailing List ==== > Looking for an obituary on a recent death? > Obituary Daily Times > http://obits.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/obit.cgi >

Hi all, Just to let you know about HB 2426 I wrote to Delegate Sam Nixon the sponsor of the bill by e-mail. After I hear back from him I will let you all know what he said. God bless, Beth familytr@att.net

Hi all, Perhaps the best thing to do instead of us surmising about their meaning is to write to our legislators and to find out exactly what they mean. My opnion is that they are referring to living persons in this particular bill. But that is only my opinion. And I can ask at LVA where I do research on a regular basis. God bless, Beth familytr@att.net

In California similar legistation is being worked on as well, which is also extreme. Other states will more than likely do the same. With so many states being billions of dollars under budget they would save money. Patti

Another Albemarle list member wrote... > But doesn't it say that the information shall not be posted on state agency or >court controlled websites? I don't see where it mentions personal websites and >I am sure they are refrring to living persons information. First, in Virginia there is no such thing, legally, as "legislative intent." There is only the exact wording of the law. The committee substitute, previously quoted on this board, is not limited to living persons or even to recent documents. It would apply whether the document was written in 2003 or 1607, if the state agency or court clerk seeks to post the document on the agency's/court's website after July 1, 2003. It would not apply to personal websites, but as "state agency" is such a broad term (see § 2.2-3801 of the Code of Virginia for the applicable definition (minus the local units of government and departments): http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3801 ), it would apparently apply to the Library of Virginia, and the various libraries, historical and research centers that are part of Virginia's public universities and colleges. It would apply to documents signed by or containing the listed information on any person, living and not, even if posted with their consent, or their descendants' consent. And, it would apply to any other entity that the state agency or court contracts with to prepare/post the documents. Let's look at some not so far-fetched examples -- - If Alderman library had access to and wanted to post, to the University's website, an original letter in which Lewis & Clark reported to Thomas Jefferson on their trek west, they would have to redact the explorer's signatures. - Any letter or other document stating a particular person's birthdate ("January 1, 1864, My darling husband -- Our new son/daughter was born this morning and awaits your return...") would have the forbidden information ("this morning" and/or the date?) redacted before posting. - State agencies will have to make sure there's no mention on any state website of the exact birthdates being remembered/celebrated for - * Martin Luther King, Jr. Day * Lee-Jackson Day * Washington's Birthday (It's not "President's Day" as the sale brochures would have you believe, but that's another discussion.) OK, the holiday example is a bit far out, but since there is no definition of "document" in the bill or the applicable definitions section, conceivably everything posted to the state agency's or court's website could be considered "a document." The bill came out of the House General Laws committee on the following vote -- (HB2426) 01/28/03 House: Reported from General Laws with sub (14-Y 8-N) YEAS--Reid, Cox, Drake, Jones, S.C., McQuigg, Suit, Bolvin, Rapp, Oder, Saxman, McDougle, Gear, Miles, Abbitt--14. NAYS--Albo, Wright, Marshall, D.W., Almand, Woodrum, Phillips, Armstrong, Barlow--8. It is now before the full House of Delegates, where the members will vote on passage on THIS SATURDAY (2/1) if it is not further delayed ("passed by for the day"). So, if you want to be heard on the bill, the time to call or e-mail your local member in the House of Delegates is Friday, 1/31. See legis.state.va.us for phone numbers and e-mail addresses. If it passes the House, then the Senate will have a shot at it. Then the Governor.

And, of course, the State couldn't publish the Declaration of Independence with the signatures. Bob Juch -----Original Message----- From: RosieB [mailto:Rosieb@sprynet.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:21 PM To: VAALBEMA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [VAALBEMA] HB 2426 - House vote expected on 2/1 Another Albemarle list member wrote... > But doesn't it say that the information shall not be posted on state >agency or >court controlled websites? I don't see where it mentions personal websites and >I am sure they are refrring to living persons information. First, in Virginia there is no such thing, legally, as "legislative intent." There is only the exact wording of the law. The committee substitute, previously quoted on this board, is not limited to living persons or even to recent documents. It would apply whether the document was written in 2003 or 1607, if the state agency or court clerk seeks to post the document on the agency's/court's website after July 1, 2003. It would not apply to personal websites, but as "state agency" is such a broad term (see § 2.2-3801 of the Code of Virginia for the applicable definition (minus the local units of government and departments): http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3801 ), it would apparently apply to the Library of Virginia, and the various libraries, historical and research centers that are part of Virginia's public universities and colleges. It would apply to documents signed by or containing the listed information on any person, living and not, even if posted with their consent, or their descendants' consent. And, it would apply to any other entity that the state agency or court contracts with to prepare/post the documents. Let's look at some not so far-fetched examples -- <snip>

Hi all, But doesn't it say that the information shall not be posted on state agency or court controlled websites? I don't see where it mentions personal websites and I am sure they are refrring to living persons information. Here is a quote from the bill which is from a previous posting below: "no state agency or court clerk shall post on a > state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the > following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security > number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) the > maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular > person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and > age of any minor child." It looks to me if I am reading it right that they mean only state agencies sites and people and court clerks and court controlled sites. God bless, Beth familytr@attnet > I know that many of you have VA research also > > SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN > in Sacramento,CA > admin for > DUNCAN-L@rootsweb.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Duncan resource material follows > ---------------------------------------------- > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~dobson [by Mary Ann Dobson] > http://www.duncanroots.com [by Keith Duncan] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > TYLER-L@rootsweb.com > VANSCOY-L@rootsweb.com > http://www.vanschaickfamily.com/ > Has many gravestone photos on his site > [ by Sean Bagby] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Newest List as of 4 January 2003 > WILMOTH-L@rootsweb.com > originally created by myself in 1997 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > MY WILMOTH INDEX > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvrandol/wilmoth.htm > > New County Coordinator at GEN EXCHANGE FOR Albemarle county,VA > and Randolph & Pendleton counties,WV > http://www.genexchange.org/state.cfm? > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvrandol/wilmoth.htm My WILMOTH INDEX > > http://www.progenealogists.com/genealogysleuthb.htm > > All my outgoing mail scanned by Norton so as to be virus free!! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> > To: <TYLER-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:52 AM > Subject: [TYLER] Fw: HB2426 > > > Fellow genealogists-- > Please read the below (House Bill 2426) and address your concerns to > Patron Del. Nixon & Co-Patrons Del. Janis & McDougle as soon as possible. > This will affect ANYONE doing genealogy research in Virginia. > Time is of the essence. If you reside in Virginia, please visit the Virginia > General Assembly's website at http://legis.state.va.us/ and click on "Who's > My Legislator" and contact all your legislators. Thanks!! > (My apologies to those who may receive this message twice)' > Please pass the word to any other Virginia genealogy-related lists you may > belong/subscribe to. > ~Sheri Millikin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> > > Cc: <del_nixon@house.state.va.us>; <Del_Janis@House.state.va.us>; > <Del_McDougle@house.state.va.us> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:46 AM > Subject: HB2426 > > > > Honorable Legislators, > > I would like to express my concerns regarding HB2426. > > > > It presently reads as below: > > > > <START> > > 030940904 > > HOUSE BILL NO. 2426 > > AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE > > (Proposed by the House Committee on General Laws > > on January 28, 2003) > > (Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Nixon) > > A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered > > 2.2-3808.2, relating to posting certain information on the Internet; > > prohibitions. > > Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: > > > > 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered > > 2.2-3808.2 as follows: > > > > § 2.2-3808.2. Posting certain information on the Internet; prohibitions. > > > > A. Beginning July 1, 2003, no state agency or court clerk shall post on a > > state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the > > following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security > > number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) > the > > maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular > > person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and > > age of any minor child. > > > > B. Every agency and every court clerk that posts any document on a state > > agency or court-controlled website may require that any party who files > > documents in any form with such agency or clerk provide, in addition to > the > > original document, a redacted copy of such documents that excises the > > information prohibited by subsection A. Failure to provide such redacted > > copy shall relieve the agency or court clerk of any liability or > > responsibility in the event that such information is posted on a state > > agency or court-controlled website. > > > > Each such agency and clerk shall post notice that (i) includes a list of > the > > documents routinely posted on its website, (ii) the information listed in > > subsection A shall be redacted from such documents, and (iii) such > documents > > are for informational purposes only. Such notice shall indicate the > location > > of the original document. > > > > C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit access to any > > original document as provided by law. > > <END> > > > > I can certainly understand and completely agree with keeping living > > individuals private information secure. However, the wording of this bill > > would not allow for genealogical research to continue within the > > Commonwealth of Virginia by way of the internet. Census records, wills, > > deeds, etc. would no longer be accessible. The Library of Virginia would > > become directly affected as well as any courthouses within Virginia that > > offer information on deceased individuals. > > > > Please have this revised so only living individual's information is > > protected and genealogy research may continue to thrive in our > Commonwealth. > > > > Thank you > > Sheri Millikin > > Hanover County,VA resident > > (proud Virginian by birth who avidly enjoys genealogy research) > > > > > ==== TYLER Mailing List ==== > If you have any questions you can contact me SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN personally > at purplevw@sl.net > I only have two rules NO ATTACHMENTS & only post TYLER DATA > > > > > ==== VAALBEMA Mailing List ==== > Please limit, or even remove, signature files that merely clutter your > messages. These may appear, and take up space, over and over again > in the Rootsweb Archives. > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

It appears that the intent is primarily to cover the state's backside and ensure that it isn't responsible for any harm that might come to someone from posting of documents on the internet. The wording, however, leaves plenty of room for lots of problems with restrictions on any entity that receives funding from the Commonwealth. I, too, am in favor of protecting people's right to privacy and reasonably protecting them against crime by not posting info of living individuals to the internet; but this needs the wording significantly clarified or there could be major problems ahead, especially in light of the fact that VA's present laws are already more restrictive than necessary for "reasonable protection ." It would seem that their intent isn't to totally restrict the posting of information any more than they absolutely necessary; because it specifies that the individuals actually filing documents (for instance wills) with the courthouse or agency are the ones ultimately responsible for providing a blanked-out document for the purpose of internet posting. It specifically states that if such a document is not provided, then the courthouse isn't to be held responsible if information is posted. However, people filing the documents aren't necessarily going to recognize who should be blacked out and who should not. Then, offices receiving the filings and faced with the added work of worrying about whether each document should or should not be posted, whether a duplicate one with the blacking out is filed, how much should be blacked out, and where are they going to store all those extra copies, will simply find it much easier (and less costly) not to post any of the documents at all, regardless of what they are allowed to do. After all, where is the funding to hire the additional people needed to handle all this extra paperwork? The VA law is already one of the most restrictive in the country on vital records. It would seem that application of the laws already in place would be more than adequate to keep records of living people from being posted by the agencies in charge of them. If the law says they won't give out a birth certificate to anyone but the parents or guardians, and not even them after the child turns 21, then it certainly wouldn't allow the agency to post the document on the internet. This new law is just a veiled first step towards the state gaining more restrictive control than necessary or desireable over internet use. Diane familytr@att.net wrote: >Hi all, > But doesn't it say that the information shall not be posted on state agency or >court controlled websites? I don't see where it mentions personal websites and >I am sure they are refrring to living persons information. > >Here is a quote from the bill which is from a previous posting below: >"no state agency or court clerk shall post on a > > >>state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the >>following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security >>number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) >> >> >the > > >>maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular >>person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and >>age of any minor child." >> >> > >It looks to me if I am reading it right that they mean only state agencies >sites and people and court clerks and court controlled sites. > >God bless, > Beth >familytr@attnet > > >>I know that many of you have VA research also >> >>From: SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN >>in Sacramento,CA >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> >>To: <TYLER-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:52 AM >>Subject: [TYLER] Fw: HB2426 >> >> >>Fellow genealogists-- >> Please read the below (House Bill 2426) and address your concerns to >>Patron Del. Nixon & Co-Patrons Del. Janis & McDougle as soon as possible. >>This will affect ANYONE doing genealogy research in Virginia. >> >> >>>

I know that many of you have VA research also SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN in Sacramento,CA admin for DUNCAN-L@rootsweb.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Duncan resource material follows ---------------------------------------------- http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~dobson [by Mary Ann Dobson] http://www.duncanroots.com [by Keith Duncan] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TYLER-L@rootsweb.com VANSCOY-L@rootsweb.com http://www.vanschaickfamily.com/ Has many gravestone photos on his site [ by Sean Bagby] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Newest List as of 4 January 2003 WILMOTH-L@rootsweb.com originally created by myself in 1997 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MY WILMOTH INDEX http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvrandol/wilmoth.htm New County Coordinator at GEN EXCHANGE FOR Albemarle county,VA and Randolph & Pendleton counties,WV http://www.genexchange.org/state.cfm? http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvrandol/wilmoth.htm My WILMOTH INDEX http://www.progenealogists.com/genealogysleuthb.htm All my outgoing mail scanned by Norton so as to be virus free!! ----- Original Message ----- From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> To: <TYLER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:52 AM Subject: [TYLER] Fw: HB2426 Fellow genealogists-- Please read the below (House Bill 2426) and address your concerns to Patron Del. Nixon & Co-Patrons Del. Janis & McDougle as soon as possible. This will affect ANYONE doing genealogy research in Virginia. Time is of the essence. If you reside in Virginia, please visit the Virginia General Assembly's website at http://legis.state.va.us/ and click on "Who's My Legislator" and contact all your legislators. Thanks!! (My apologies to those who may receive this message twice)' Please pass the word to any other Virginia genealogy-related lists you may belong/subscribe to. ~Sheri Millikin ----- Original Message ----- From: <whoucisme@mindspring.com> Cc: <del_nixon@house.state.va.us>; <Del_Janis@House.state.va.us>; <Del_McDougle@house.state.va.us> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:46 AM Subject: HB2426 > Honorable Legislators, > I would like to express my concerns regarding HB2426. > > It presently reads as below: > > <START> > 030940904 > HOUSE BILL NO. 2426 > AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE > (Proposed by the House Committee on General Laws > on January 28, 2003) > (Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Nixon) > A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered > 2.2-3808.2, relating to posting certain information on the Internet; > prohibitions. > Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: > > 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered > 2.2-3808.2 as follows: > > § 2.2-3808.2. Posting certain information on the Internet; prohibitions. > > A. Beginning July 1, 2003, no state agency or court clerk shall post on a > state agency or court-controlled website any document that contains the > following information: (i) an actual signature; (ii) a social security > number; (iii) a date of birth identified with a particular person; (iv) the > maiden name of a person's parent so as to be identified with a particular > person; (v) any financial account number or numbers; or (vi) the name and > age of any minor child. > > B. Every agency and every court clerk that posts any document on a state > agency or court-controlled website may require that any party who files > documents in any form with such agency or clerk provide, in addition to the > original document, a redacted copy of such documents that excises the > information prohibited by subsection A. Failure to provide such redacted > copy shall relieve the agency or court clerk of any liability or > responsibility in the event that such information is posted on a state > agency or court-controlled website. > > Each such agency and clerk shall post notice that (i) includes a list of the > documents routinely posted on its website, (ii) the information listed in > subsection A shall be redacted from such documents, and (iii) such documents > are for informational purposes only. Such notice shall indicate the location > of the original document. > > C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit access to any > original document as provided by law. > <END> > > I can certainly understand and completely agree with keeping living > individuals private information secure. However, the wording of this bill > would not allow for genealogical research to continue within the > Commonwealth of Virginia by way of the internet. Census records, wills, > deeds, etc. would no longer be accessible. The Library of Virginia would > become directly affected as well as any courthouses within Virginia that > offer information on deceased individuals. > > Please have this revised so only living individual's information is > protected and genealogy research may continue to thrive in our Commonwealth. > > Thank you > Sheri Millikin > Hanover County,VA resident > (proud Virginian by birth who avidly enjoys genealogy research) > ==== TYLER Mailing List ==== If you have any questions you can contact me SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN personally at purplevw@sl.net I only have two rules NO ATTACHMENTS & only post TYLER DATA

Looking for information on John Kirby, born Albemarle County, late 1700s, married Mary P. Robertson 11/18/1809. She was daughter of John and Sarah Robertson. I believe they were in a part of Albemarle that became or once was Nelson County. They had 9 children that I know of...Edwin M. was born 1812 -- he's the only one I have info on. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Hello Pendleton & Randolph county subscribers I have recently been made County Coordinator for the counties listed below...SEE LINKS BELOW For Pendleton county, I have a 500 page Word Perfect index of the above book that I compiled in 1988 A 20 page index for a book on the Wilmoth name....SEE LINK BELOW another index for a book on the HULL/HOHL/HOLE name from a book on this name My HULL line is mostly in Pendleton county but spilled over into Randolph The reason for telling you this is because I originally had a dream to incorporate all my indexes including Tucker county, Highland county & the Albemarle book by Woods into a single index for my own purposes,so there are few spaces between names Sandra Tyler Duncan VA & WV GenExchange County Coordinator for Albemarle County VA Pendleton County and Randolph Counties WV http://www.genexchange.org/county.cfm?state==va&county=albemarle http://www.genexchange.org/county.cfm?state=va&county=charlottesville http://www,genexchange.org/county.cfm?state==wv&county=pendleton http://www,genexchange.org/county.cfm?state==wv&county=randolph ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ feel free to visit http://www.genexchange.org/us.cfm our project at: http://www.genexchange.org/state.cfm?state=va HELP US KEEP GENEALOGY FREE!!! Contribute....http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvrandol/wilmoth.htm My WILMOTH INDEX ********************SAMPLE LINES FROM PENDLETON INDEX=pc Adamson JohnR JosephW&JuliaSkidmore MaryRatchfordWaybright,173pc Adamson JohnW 1847 Wm&ElizaDLong MaryAlt,173pc Adamson JosephE Wm&ElizaDLong 173pc Adamson JosephW aft1799 yngrBroToWm JuliaB/ASkidmore,173/297pc See no spaces...the spaces are actually tabs. second line says John W. Adamson born 1847 son of Joseph W. Adamson & Julia Skidmore married MaryRatchfordWaybright as seen on page 173 of Pendleton county book so this long drawn out deal is to say that I am looking for someone to convert these indexes into something more readable for researchers, "I" can read it fine, after all I created it on my Tandy TRS-80 and prayed for the day when I could merge all my indexes....into a single index which might show other books where each name might be contained. I did these indexes before I got on the Internet and thoroughly enjoyed it....Now, of course I have the Internet but no ability to do indexes any longer... And so I am looking for SKS that would convert these for the general researching public. They MUST be placed on a site that does not charge anything for the use of any of these indexes NOTE: The WILMOTH index bizarrely was sent to someone to do that for me just before I had a stroke in 1998, and when I finally got back on the computer 18 months later I was not aware that the online index was faulty and I just got notification that the online index stops with Mary WILMOTH...???? anyway when I went to find it on my computer, it has been hopelessly corrupted....I went ahead and sent my cleaned up version to Sharon with a long explanation but my hope now is to have all the rest done, so last few days have been spent trying to get all of my indexes burned onto CD's I see I am starting to ramble, so I am signing off now

Hi to the list Just found this a.m. on death register for my Peter Johnson who died in 1875 in Albemarle that he died at "near Johnson Mill". I have tried the USGS mapping search, with no success. Does anyone have any idea or suggestions to locate where this mill existed in 1875? Alice in Fluvanna