When you are called to court, there are two different ways to do it.
Typically, a warrant is used for felonies and for serious misdemeanors, while a summons is used for less serious crimes.
That's why I was so surprised to learn this existed from the Albermarle County Warrant Index:
UPDATE: Allen claims the warrant was for not having a fishing license.
I'm skeptical because the records involved appear to have been destroyed.
Why would a warrant be issued for a fishing license violation?
Apparently there is also a criminal hearing in 1973. Could that be the fishing license violation?

MORE TOUPEE'S, MORE TOUPEE'S!
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Okay, let's try that again:
It's SUMMONS!
Unreal!
Posted by: GLodge | October 13, 2006 at 10:06 AM
What was the charge?
Posted by: SE VA MWC Alum | October 13, 2006 at 10:07 AM
I can't even tell what that is. Can't we get more information than that?
Posted by: brimur | October 13, 2006 at 10:07 AM
OK......
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Is this the big news?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:09 AM
That Allen was possibly served with a criminal warrant for a felony or serious misdemeanor? Yeah, I'd say this is the big news, wouldn't you?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:13 AM
OH. MY. GOD!!!! This is earth-shattering news!!
Only THREE toupees?!?!?!
Posted by: I.Publius | October 13, 2006 at 10:13 AM
Deer heads have wigs?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Does "C. of Va" Stand for "Commonwealth of Virginia"?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Maybe he was bailing out Phil Kellam...
Posted by: Insider | October 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant
In the United States, an arrest warrant must be supported by a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that:
1. a specific crime has been committed, and
2. the person(s) named in the warrant committed said crime.
In most jurisdictions, an arrest warrant is required for misdemeanors that do not occur within view of a police officer. However, as long as police have the necessary probable cause, a warrant is usually not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Wow - good catch. Plaintiff was the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Where's the beef?
Posted by: William Jackson | October 13, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Putting up a photo without telling what it is for it simply teasing people.
It leads one to conclude that there must not be any "there," there, if you cannot tell a story behind the alleged warrant
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Nice attempt at a subject change, Insider. Ben, we definitely need more information on this. Have you talked with people in the press about this, dude?
Posted by: Dannyboy | October 13, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Anon 10:16. Yes - which makes you wonder why that was NOT present on the GA entry.
Posted by: I.Publius | October 13, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Was this an ARREST WARRANT?
Va. Code Ann. Sec. 19.2-71
Who may issue process of arrest.
A. Process for the arrest of a person charged with a criminal offense may be issued by the judge, or clerk of any circuit court, any general district court, any juvenile and domestic relations district court, or any magistrate as provided for in Chapter 3 (§ 19.2-26 et seq.) of this title.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Nice article on VNS, Danny. You write ten times better on there than on here.
Posted by: Insider | October 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM
The best part with Allen is the explanation. The Jewish heritage story was fun and was the Macaca tale.
The press needs to ask the campaign what Allen was served with.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM
you are being duped......
this is a diabolical attempt to distract the media from allen's failing to disclose 1.1 million is stock options on his senate finance disclosure forms and the large lineup of people who dispute his "baseless" defense.
Posted by: Newport News Dem | October 13, 2006 at 10:22 AM
§ 19.2-72. When it may issue; what to recite and require.
On complaint of a criminal offense to any officer authorized to issue criminal warrants he shall examine on oath the complainant and any other witnesses, or when such officer shall suspect that an offense punishable otherwise than by a fine has been committed he may, without formal complaint, issue a summons for witnesses and shall examine such witnesses. If upon such examination such officer finds that there is probable cause to believe the accused has committed an offense, such officer shall issue a warrant for his arrest. The warrant shall (i) be directed to an appropriate officer or officers, (ii) name the accused or, if his name is unknown, set forth a description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty, (iii) describe the offense charged with reasonable certainty, (iv) command that the accused be arrested and brought before a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the county, city or town in which the offense was allegedly committed, and (v) be signed by the issuing officer. The warrant shall require the officer to whom it is directed to summon such witnesses as shall be therein named to appear and give evidence on the examination. But in a city or town having a police force, the warrant shall be directed "To any policeman, sheriff or his deputy sheriff of such city (or town)," and shall be executed by the policeman, sheriff or his deputy sheriff into whose hands it shall come or be delivered. A sheriff or his deputy may execute an arrest warrant throughout the county in which he serves and in any city surrounded thereby.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:22 AM
*yawn*
Nice try Ben. If there was any "there" "there" don't you think it would have been outted years ago?
Or are y'all really that slow on opposition research?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:23 AM
don't give a crap about statutes, want to know what the specific charge against Allen was...you're wasting the vast space of the internet tubes by posting statutes
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Who's "George Franklin Allen" ?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:24 AM
This log was hard to find. All the other records were destroyed. This could be something Allen believed was hidden.
The Media needs to ask questions.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:25 AM
...or should I say you're clogging the internet tubes with statutes
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:25 AM
§ 19.2-73. Issuance of summons instead of warrant in certain cases.
A. In any misdemeanor case or in any class of misdemeanor cases, or in any case involving complaints made by any state or local governmental official or employee having responsibility for the enforcement of any statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, the magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction may issue a summons instead of a warrant when there is reason to believe that the person charged will appear in the courts having jurisdiction over the trial of the offense charged.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:25 AM
Guilty!
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Knowing Ben, he's got more "there" there, and he's going to trickle it out slowly for max effect.
Right, Ben?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Hiding stock options, felonies, Foley, Abramoff and Enron funding, racial slurs. When will it all end? Enough!
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:28 AM
Why were the records destroyed? That sounds very suspicious.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:28 AM
If he was convicted of a felony, he could not vote, practice law or own a gun, unless his rights were restored. So it looks unlikely that this is a felony, if there was any conviction at all.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Webb should have asked Allen in that debate- "Why was he served a warrent in 1973?"
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:31 AM
He could have been charged with a felony and had it reduced to a missy elliot.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I'm bored as of now. But knowing Ben, it'll get better and more exciting as the day wears on, culminating in more toupees and maybe sirens and total chaos.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 10:33 AM
As of now, the only thing I can think of that might hurt him are cold hard facts about the racism charges. And that's only bc he went on record saying that they were baseless attacks.
Is this about racism?
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Did he have a warrant? It looks like it. Does it matter? Maybe. Was he looting? Well, people loot in a free society.
Noon Shuttlecock Ted!
Posted by: Not Don Rumsfeld | October 13, 2006 at 10:40 AM
1025am anon - You're parroting speculation from DailyKos where this story's been simmering for all week. The picture is new, though. Be interesting to see what it's all about...
Posted by: Jason | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
A warrant isn't necessarily a "warrant for arrest."
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
well, Allen's 54, this is from 74, he was 22 at the time. Not married, still in college.
Posted by: William Jackson | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
I have no recollection.
Posted by: GFA | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
It COULD be about the baseball bat, I guess. Bats are considered a weapon when wielded at people, no? And I am pretty sure if someone saw a bat with the words "N*&$#@ Knocker" on it, they would consider it a weapon.
Is it the bat?
And yes-I am pussing out on typing the "N" word. You can all figure it out, I am sure.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 10:42 AM
"Major Allen"?
He never served.
He only got served.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Ben, What the hell is going on? If this is so big why not tell us all what you have and get it into the mainstream media ASAP. Stop messing around
Posted by: BotetourtDemocrat | October 13, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Is there a latin phrase for "show us the deer head"? Publius?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:50 AM
et Tu severdius de deerum
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 10:51 AM
I think that may have to be my new signature, anon 10:51.
Posted by: Dannyboy | October 13, 2006 at 10:55 AM
PLEASE keep pursuing this. When it backfires, it'll save the Allen campaign a bundle in advertising dollars.
Posted by: Not Dick Wadhams | October 13, 2006 at 10:57 AM
So, as of now, we know that Allen's name is signed in to the warrant index. Well, this could all be cleared up with records. It's file #7516K. It's not like this should be hard to get to the bottom of, right? Shouldn't the records be public?
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Jaime:
Unless they were...destroyed. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! The Macacan Society, a group of underground lizard people, has been using George Allen to assume the presidency and take over the world! Then, the lizard men will come to the surface and enslave humanity, and we will be powerless to stop them!
Vote for Jim Webb.
Posted by: Dannyboy | October 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM
So it is a warrant? http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/13/10202/206
Posted by: brimur | October 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Allen got a ticket for fishing without a license and then failed to show up at court. This happened when he was an UNDERGRAD at UVA. This issue has been known about for decades and has been addressed by the MSM in each of his previous elections. IT IS A NON-ISSUE.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:00 AM
You guys are complete suckers. You're again taking the focus off Webb and making it about something irrelevant. This isn't an issue and it won't move the meter. You should all step away from your computers and go canvas for Webb.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Never has so much been paid for so little.
Maybe he was caught streaking across the lawn. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Oh. Well, I guess that's settled. Thanks anon 11am.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 11:02 AM
The WP is all over this look for a big piece early next week.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Dick Cheney was once arrested for fishing without a license.
When asked about it by the FBI during his secretary clearance process to serve as Sec. of Defense, his staff asked him what was the worst part of the experience. Cheney's response, "the game warden kept the fucking fish."
BFG.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM
In smaller counties/towns, it would suprise you the things that warrants are taken out for. Summons/Warrants = court costs being paid by the defendant = generation of revenue. Ever notice that speed traps are usually set up in small towns?? Not that I necessarily believe that this is about a fishing license, but...
Posted by: Bergdorf Brunette | October 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM
who cares if he got a ticket 30 years ago for fishing without a license. I could care less what Allen did in college. I could care less what Kellam did in college. Lots of people do stupid things when they are in college.
Posted by: SE VA MWC Alum | October 13, 2006 at 11:05 AM
The white out is suspicious. Maybe the person entering just made a mistake; maybe s/he thought the county was plaintiff first and it was the state (that would suggest the charge was more serious that a county license violation); maybe a cover up started and failed?
Posted by: Mookie | October 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Over on dKos, they explain why the records were destroyed:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/13/10202/206/2
And warrants can be issued for keeping fish that are too small to keep, so it makes sense that warrants could be issued for not having a fishing license.
Bottom line: The "story" is over 30 years old, and is irrelevant now. Allen should be ashamed of himself for fishing without a license, but hasn't everyone in the world who's gone to college used bad judgement at least once while there?
I wish this was something that we could use against Allen, but it's not.
Posted by: Sam Penney | October 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
maybe you should learn how to spell the name of one of virgina's larger counties before you go any further.
Posted by: spell much? | October 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Well at least this was an interesting diversion for a few minutes today. The fishing story does seem to add up. That's the kind of thing that UVA students get in trouble for in college ;) (kidding!, mostly)
Posted by: JMU Duke | October 13, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Bergdorf-I got a speeding ticket in college for the very reason you are saying. there was this tiny little one horse town, with a gas station, a trailer park, and a 711. That was it. And the cops sat on their little tiny area of the highway 24 7 giving out tix for everything they possible could.
I kind of felt bad though; the town looked like it had been destroyed. Just desolate. I'm sure (since it was in OHIO) that a bunch of hard working blue collars lost their job due to horrible administration by Republican officials, so I didn't mind paying the ticket so much.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 11:17 AM
This seems like pretty lame news...and i had such high hopes. I mean, dear heads, puppy torture, new islands, sigh, but no, a stupid arrest warrent, is all we get.
You let us down "Not Larry Sabato."
Posted by: Lo Scrivano | October 13, 2006 at 11:20 AM
phriendly who is Ohio State playing this weekend?
Posted by: SE VA MWC Alum | October 13, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Looks like NLS was "fishing" for a story and got hooked himself!!!
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:20 AM
I was fishing for turtles without a license.
Posted by: Velvet Godfather | October 13, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Michigan State. I am confident, but there have been upsets against them before.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 11:24 AM
Inidiana next week, Minnesota next, illinois next, then Northwestern, and then the big one: Michigan. But, they have to come to us this year. STILL-a loss to Michigan would knock us out of the top.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 11:26 AM
Well I certainly hope they do better than VA Tech did last night. That was awful
Posted by: SE VA MWC Alum | October 13, 2006 at 11:26 AM
I am not sure fishing lic were required in 1973. I thought they were not required until 1979.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:27 AM
I'd like to see proof that the fishing licence thing is true.
Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | October 13, 2006 at 11:28 AM
§ 29.1-300. Unlawful to hunt, trap or fish without license.
It shall be unlawful to hunt, trap or fish in or on the lands or inland waters of this Commonwealth without first obtaining a license, subject to the exceptions set out in § 29.1-301.
(Code 1950, § 29-51; 1987, c. 488.)
Looks like licenses have been required a long time, anon 11:27
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:30 AM
I know, Tech is having a rough couple, huh?
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Fishing?
It's official. Webb's finished. The race is over.
Posted by: Insider | October 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Jaime.....
Hail to the Victors Valiant
Hail to the Conquering Heroes
Hail Hail to Michigan
The Champions of the West!!
So Allen failed to pay the fine before the court appearance??? Sounds fishy
I'm with NLS...prove this is a fishing license issue. Just saying it is not proof.
Posted by: Newport News Dem | October 13, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Sorry, burden of proof is on those making the accusation.
Posted by: Insider | October 13, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Let's see. According to Allen, the racial allegations being made against him are completely false.
And, the arrest warrant was for not having a fishing license.
I don't know anyone who believes the first story, so why would anyone believe a fishing story from Allen? As in, it all sounds fishy to me, how about you?
In fact, I can't think of when Allen told the truth. Certainly not about the stock options.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 11:41 AM
That's what the five toupees were for? Lame.
Posted by: Delta Mike | October 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM
What amazes me about this whole hoopla is that so many posters here were practically peeing their pants with hysteria on Daily Kos yesterday.
Some of the various posts were....please go to the courthouse. Go now. Hurry,hurry, hurry. We gotta send someone to the record room now before it is too late.
Please. As if some little warrant from 1973 is going to make a difference.
Jim Webb and his supporters need to start talking a little more about Jim Webb's positions on the issues.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Ben, shouldn't the burden of proof that this is something worse be on you, the accuser?
Posted by: Jason | October 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Just yesterday, Jaime was beside herself with hysteria thinking that this warrant had something to do with violence against his ex-wife. Never mind the fact that Allen's ex-wife has already done interviews in support of him.
This shows how truly desperate the Webbnuts have become.
Rather than digging through ancient documents, I suggest that you start digging through the rubbish down at the Webb HQ to find something that resembles a position paper. Maybe then you can start talking about the Webb agenda to raise taxes.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Does this involve young men's powerful legs?
Posted by: m foley | October 13, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Lizard - Actually, I have to give some Webb supporters credit for being rational about this (like the DailyKos comment on record destruction being par not conspiracy). I can understand wanting to find out what this is all about and sure there are a few folks getting rabid about this and throwing around some horrible accusations, but all in all I can't fault them for wanting to know more.
Unfortunately, many Dems won't take Allen's word for it and if there are no records as to the whole incident some are going to be running with this until election day with their speculation, thus continuing to avoid the issues that really matter.
Posted by: Jason | October 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Ben once told a fish story theeeeeeeeeeeeees beeeeeeeeeegggg.....
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You guys are hysterical.
Posted by: Not Finding Nemo | October 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Ahem... Jason, Lizard, y'all need to take a good look at what your guy, Allen, is pushing. The supposed "issues"? An article Webb wrote 27 years ago. That's all he's pushing. Oh, and some made crap that Webb is going to tax the hell out of Virginia. Issues my ass.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Here's the best part about this. About a dozen wackos showed up at the Cvill court house this week looking for records (obviously they were too stupid to know there is a Cville courthouse and a county courthouse). They then all trucked across the street where the clerk, registrar, sheriff, etc (all Allen supporters) sat around and laughed at them. You see, these nutjobs were talking all kinds of conspiracies about what they were going to find. Seeing the dejection on these folks' faces was the highlight of the week for those in attendance.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Jaimie, you're the expert on phishing. What up?
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Jason,
Whether some of the Webbnuts are rational is for others to decide. To paraphrase Jim Webb's response the other night, Res Ipsa Loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.
In turn, their actions speak for themselves and they were clearly in hysteria over this thing.
This brings me to my broader point. If you have to rely on 11th hour revelations about DUI's, parking tickets, and late night loud music complaints, chances are your campaign is in serious trouble.
If there was some felony here, there would be a substantial record.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Anon 12:01, the fact that Webb is going to raises taxes is a real issue. Virginians watched Kaine in his bid for election promise not to raise taxes. Then turn right around, his first month in office, and propose a budget that raised numerous taxes. Second of all, even my friends who are Dems & planning to vote for Webb, don't know his position on most things (minus being opposed to the war in Iraq and anti-affirmative action).
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Anon 12:05 was me, just forgot to sign in.
Posted by: Bergdorf Brunette | October 13, 2006 at 12:05 PM
What month was the warrant issued? Was it during fishing season? I'm guessing the Allen team made sure of that before they claimed that is was over fishing, but this wouldn't be their first big gaffe...
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:06 PM
To anon. at 12:01am.:
Sounds like you are starting to accept the reality of your impending defeat. Sounds like you've already concocted your excuses for the post mortem.
Why is the 1979 Article relevant?
Because you've been trying to force feed the Virginia electorate that Jim Webb is somehow this brilliant military mind. Turns out that he wasn't quite the champion you thought he'd be.
As to taxes, well what can we say. Jim Webb seemed to put his foot in his mouth on that one and he's been stammering ever since.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 12:07 PM
anon 12:06 - Yeah, cause goofy college kids fishing without licenses care if it's fishing season. You're a goofball who clearly knows nothing about fishing or being a college student.
Posted by: | October 13, 2006 at 12:08 PM
"Beside myself?"
OK.
Um, btw-I am loving all of the phish refernces here and on RK in reference to me. I think it's phunny.
Posted by: phriendlyjaime | October 13, 2006 at 12:09 PM
To anon. at 12:06:
Perhaps the citation was for fishing out of season and fishing without a license. Did you ever contemplate that one?
I'm not sure the state of Va. fishing laws in 1973-1974 but until very recently, Va. fishers could only fish for trout during certain times of the year. As to the rest of the fish, you could fish anytime.
This would include small mouth bass, large mouth, catfish, crappie, bluegill, and a host of other fish.
Like hunting, the seasons aren't one size fits all.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Jaime,
My fav. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is Phish Food.
Good stuff. And, I once saw Dave Mathews appear onstage with Phish at the Nissan Pavillion. that was a good show.
Posted by: Lizard King | October 13, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Um...anon 12:06, does it really matter if it ~was~ fishing season?
Maybe the "fact" that it wasn't was the issue.
Y'all go ahead and work this up into a lather. I would LOVE to see this on the front page of the Compost.
Posted by: Not Finding Nemo | October 13, 2006 at 12:12 PM