Gloucester Animal Control Evidence of Fraud?

Back in May of 2010, the Crews residence was illegally raided and an illegal search warrant was used as part of that raid.  The evidence is right here.  This is the back end of that search warrant.  How do we know its illegal?  Simple, the name on the execution and return are that of Stephen T Baranek, who at that time was a deputy Animal Control officer.  Animal Control can not under Virginia code, ever, serve or execute a search warrant.  The front was issued and signed by Gloria Owens who is a deputy clerk of the circuit court.  But the case was held in District Court.  What business did a circuit court clerk have in district court business?  Also, a circuit court clerk can not at anytime issue a search warrant in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Yet we have shown that Gloucester has done just that.

Again, you see that the search warrant here is issued by Gloria Owens, Deputy Clerk of the Gloucester Circuit Court.  Search Warrants can only be issued by Judges or Magistrates.  Also, read how broad the search warrant is written.  Search Warrants must be very specific as to whom and or what is to be searched and or seized.  A broad search warrant is illegal.  Also note, there is no court stamp for the date of issue.  Only for the date of return.  How many violations can we find here?  

  I only recently received permission to publish this information and we are now showing all the dirt on this case.  

Above is one of the pictures taken by an Animal Control deputy showing Laura Crews to the far left with her hands behind her back because they arrested her.  They did not have a search warrant at that time like they claim in the court report.  The only thing the Crews family ever received was a copy of the front page.  I had to fight the county for over a month under FOIA to get the majority of the rest of it.  It took Congressman Rob Wittman's office to step in and force the county to provide that information which was not completed to my request.

  The picture screen shot above also shows the meta data on the camera used and the time and date the picture was taken.  They had no real cause to take her into custody.  It was an illegal raid from every area I have looked at.  What was the motive?  Land and animal theft is what we have uncovered as some of the reasons for the raid.  

Look at the ground around this bathtub.  It is wet.  On the outer rim it is very dry.  It had not rained in over 10 days during that period and we have confirmed that based on weather history sites for this area.  That tub was filled with water and Animal Control as well as several Sheriff's deputies were conspiring to create fraudulent evidence against Laura Crews and stated in court, the animals had no water.  Well of course they had no water when Animal Control and Sheriff's deputies drain it all out from the various areas around the property.

Mike Soberick never argued these facts.  Attorney Mike Soberick never argued the illegal search warrant.  This guy has now been promoted to a Judge.  Commit fraud get a promotion?  Typical in Gloucester.  Judge Shaw who had to also see the illegal search warrant and had heard the case has gone from District Court Judge to Circuit Court Judge.  What a wonderful reward system.  Illegally convict people and get a promotion for doing such?  Really?    

And its all thanks to this guy right here.  Steve Baranek of Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control.

Related articles

• The Gloucester, Virginia Legal Case That Never Happened?
• Gloucester, VA - FOIA and Private Email Accounts In Virginia

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fake Audio Submitted As Evidence

The above video was created from a file provided to the Gloucester, Virginia District Court back in 2010.  This is one of several audio files.  This part of the audio was never played in court and one has to wonder why.  Listen to it and tell me that it isn't fake.  Yet Animal Control deputy, Steve Baranek, testified, under oath, that all audio he created and entered into court evidence was true and accurate.  This is from court file number DW_C0153.  Are you to tell me that a dog answered the phone?

  He also states he was shot at.  Below again is a copy of the court report from that case.  At no point was this man ever shot at like he states in the audio above.  But again, he did state, under oath no less, that the audio was not altered and is a true copy of everything that did happen.  So people are supposed to believe Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control how?  He can't be lying that he was shot at, but testimony from both the Sheriff's office, and him, fail to show that even one gun shot, at any point, at anytime took place?  Did Steve for some reason just decide to suppress this fact?  Was he just being a nice guy?

  There are just way to many questions in the entire case that do not for one minute begin to make sense to any mind of reason.

 

The gloucester, va case that never was from Chuck Thompson

By all means, here is today's challenge.  Find where Steve states in court that he was shot at.  It's all from the same case.  Laura Crews has petitioned the court for meta data on the audio files used against her on this case and all I can imagine is that she will get it once hell freezes over for obvious reasons.  We already know from inside the Sheriff's office that the Sheriff's office has destroyed evidence in regards to this case and I challenge the Sheriff's office to prove they did not.  Nothing against the present administration as this was done under Gentry when he still held office.  As the word goes, Gentry, ordered it destroyed.

Who wants to have some real fun with all of this?  Start at page 15 and go through at least to page 23.  Its a fast read.  You won't understand what you are reading until I point out a very cleat fact here.  Animal Control at no point has or ever had the ability to serve a search warrant.  They are forbidden by Virginia Code from doing such.  With that knowledge, now go read the suggested pages above.  How did Judge Shaw allow this case to move forward?  He had a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  He didn't do that.  Why?  Read the Canons of Judicial Conduct For The State of Virginia and you will see that Judge Shaw did in fact have a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  But this is just my opinion here and I am not an attorney trying to practice law.  I am simply reporting on what I see and read.

  If you are not an attorney you are considered to stupid to understand the law yet ignorance of the law is no excuse.  All of that from the same group of people who administer justice?  Yup!

Canons of Judicial Conduct: Virginia Commonwealth from Chuck Thompson

Because I recommend you read the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia, I provide them for you right here.  I don't make this stuff up.  They do.  I just show you where it all is.  Read section 3:D.  Guess who the Judge is the case against Laura Crews today.  Judge Shaw.  Are we going to see a repeat of these same shenanigans?  Actually he is about to be asked to recuse himself from the case as these matters are about to be brought into evidence once again.    

Related articles

• The Gloucester, Virginia Legal Case That Never Happened?
• Dr Walter Reed and Yellow Fever, Gloucester, Virginia History
• Gloucester, VA County Government Document Shows Illegal Ordinance AC 3-18
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fun Raids?

Gloucester, Virginia Steve Baranek of Animal Control - Fraud and Perjury?Above

Above is a video we just posted to You Tube that contains audio as recorded by Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control on July 26th, 2014.  The audio file is DW_D0503 and was submitted into evidence to bring two counts of misdemeanor charges against Laura Crews of Gloucester.  Listen to the audio clip.  Its 33 seconds long.  Within the first 30 seconds Steve makes 3 admissions.  He admits that he is just walking around killing a few minutes.  The second admission is that there are no animals at the yard sale he is at and the third admission is that he is somewhere he should not be because he states, "I can not go shopping on company time".

  The accusations of statutory violations filed against Laura Crews are 19.2-415 for Disorderly Conduct and the second one is 19.2-460 Obstruction of Justice.  Now if you read Virginia Code and look at the annotations on how that code is to be used, in Washington v Commonwealth, 2007, S.E.2d 485, it is clear that law-enforcement must be engaged in their lawful duty in order for there to be an obstruction of justice.  A police officer sitting at a desk waiting on transportation of Washington, when Washington stated he would kill the police officer, the police officer was not engaged in a lawful duty where obstruction of justice was claimed as a violation.  The court threw out the Commonwealths accusations.

  So again, looking at Steve's own admissions above I can not begin to see where there is any valid claim on these accusations of statutory violations.  Here is the information he provided to a grand jury in Virginia Beach.

You can click on the image to blow it up for easier reading.  This is the same complaint written by Steve Baranek that is in the video above.  It seems as though Mr Baranek has committed fraud and perjury here.  He knew through his own admission that there were no animals at the yard sale but claims the yard sale was a Chicken Swap which would indicate a potentially valid reason for being there.  (I say potentially valid reason but in my view even if animals were there Animal Control has no legal right to patrol.  Virginia is a Dillon Rule state and the state, from what I have tried to find, does not allow Animal Control the ability to patrol public areas, streets, highways and or buildings).  The claim of calling the yard sale a Chicken Swap is where Steve has committed perjury in my view.  I say my view as I am not an attorney and I am not trying to practice law.  I am only a witness to just about every event of this case except the July 26th, 2014 situation.  I am only reporting the information as I know and understand it.

  The above has been reported to Holly Smith, Commonwealth Attorney for Gloucester 9th District.  We are waiting to see what she says on this.  We have so called witness testimony provided by prosecution that actually has 4 so called witnesses against Laura Crews for the accusations of statutory violations, but the records show that the testimony actually works against Steve as they all state that Steve was at a yard sale.  (Not acting in an official capacity).  I also call the so called witnesses such as the prosecution has failed to provide evidence of witnesses against the accused in violation of rules of evidence even after she stated in court she would do so.  A motion to quash was filed against any form of witnesses because of such by Laura Crews.

  What is even worse, the audio evidence was provided to Laura, by the prosecution.  I have to assume that the prosecuting attorney was to busy to listen to it to realize what the audio actually contains.  This would seem to me to be malicious prosecution by the prosecutor for the case.   A motion to dismiss is now before the court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  A motion to show cause has also been filed to know by what authority Animal Control has of patrolling public areas, streets, highways and or buildings.  So far, not one motion filed by Laura Crews has ever been answered by anyone at anytime all in violation of court rules.  How does that work?  She was told in court that she has to follow the rules, but no one else has to?  And she is the one facing criminal sanctions?  I really do not understand how that works.  But that is the question of a reasonable person and we must not be dealing with any form of reason here.

  Who knows maybe they told her she "SHALL" follow the rules of the court which would mean that sometime in the future she may follow the rules of the court if she so pleases.  (Look up the definition of the word - "SHALL").

shall

SHal,SHəl/

verb

modal verb: shall

1. 1.

   (in the first person) expressing the future tense.

   "this time next week I shall be in Scotland"
2. 2.

   expressing a strong assertion or intention.

   "they shall succeed"
3. 3.

   expressing an instruction or command.

   "you shall not steal"
4. 4.

   used in questions indicating offers or suggestions.

   "shall I send you the book?"

Related articles

• How To Disqualify Your Judge Or Prosecuting Attorney: Recuse Them
• Gloucester, Virginia Zoning For Horses: None By Federal Law
• 'If Obama Doesn't Follow the Constitution, We Don't Have To", Say's A Police Officer On Video
• Outrageous Court Order by Judge Sward of Portsmouth Virginia
• Cop Does WHAT With A Child And Keeps Job? [Disturbing Story]

Gloucester, VA Animal Control and the Bena Feral Cats

As it should; the issue pertaining to the feral cats in Bena, Virginia seems to be resolving itself without action by the Gloucester Board of Supervisors.  The most logical approach to such an issue is education, effective communication and public relation skills.  When a representative of animal control responds to such complaints it would be more productive if they act as a positive representative of the County, an educator and a mediator.  Presenting themselves as intimidating law enforcement officers who render inaccurate definitions of law only serves to cause confusion, animosity, distrust, paranoia and continuation or escalation of the issue at hand.

 

Upon first contact; the responding animal control officer should have spoken to all of the parties involved and provided the owner of the property/cats with handouts containing information on applicable law, the potential risks involved and options to mitigate the issue.  A time limit for the owner to contain the cats she claimed ownership of should have been established.  The animal control officer should have obtained permission from the owner to capture the cats she did not claim.  Animal control could have then turned the unclaimed cats over to the private entity the tax payers of Gloucester already pay to assume responsibility of abandoned cats and other animals.

 

Animal control readily utilizes private people and organizations when they conduct seizures; why did it take so long for private people and organizations to get involved in the feral cat issue? 

 

Animal control personnel are not law enforcement officers.  They are law officers with a very limited domain.  § 3.2-6555 of the Code of Virginia provides the following on the powers of animal control officers:  

When in uniform or upon displaying a badge or other credentials of office, animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have the power to issue a summons or obtain a felony warrant as necessary, providing the execution of such warrant shall be carried out by any law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, to any person found in the act of violating any such law or any ordinance enacted pursuant to such law of the locality where the animal control officer or deputy animal control officer is employed.

 

The following is the applicable definition found in § 9.1-101:

 

" Law-enforcement officer " means any full-time or part-time employee of a police department or sheriff's office which is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth, and shall include any (i) special agent of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) police agent appointed under the provisions of § 56-353; (iii) officer of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officer who is a full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigator who is a full-time sworn member of the security division of the Virginia Lottery; (vi) conservation officer of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to § 10.1-115; (vii) full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217; (viii) animal protection police officer employed under § 15.2-632; or (ix) campus police officer appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23. Part-time employees are those compensated officers who are not full-time employees as defined by the employing police department or sheriff's office.

 

§ 9.1-101, (viii) includes animal protection police officers employed under the following:

 

§ 15.2-632. Department of public safety.

The department of public safety if and when established shall be under the supervision of a director of public safety appointed by the county manager. Such department shall consist of the following divisions:

1. Division of police, in charge of a chief of police and consisting of such other police officers and personnel as may be appointed, including an animal protection police officer who shall have all of the powers of an animal control officer conferred by general law and one or more deputy animal protection police officers to assist the animal protection police officer in the performance of his duties. In addition, the animal protection police officer and his deputies shall have all of the powers vested in law-enforcement officers as defined in § 9.1-101, provided they have met the minimum qualifications and have been certified under §§ 15.2-1705 and 15.2-1706.

2. Division of fire protection, in charge of a fire chief and consisting of such fire fighters, and other personnel as may be appointed.

 

Gloucester County, Virginia does not have an animal protection police officer, therefore under Commonwealth law, Gloucester’s animal control officers must rely on law enforcement to perform criminal enforcement.  During the October 21, 2014 Board meeting Animal Control Officer Steve Baranek stated he would prosecute anyone caught shooting a companion animal.  Animal control officers do not have the power to prosecute.  In all essence they serve only as complainant or witness in criminal proceedings.  Arrogant statements such as the one Officer Baranek publicly made only further exemplifies the misunderstanding of duties and powers and the lack of public relation skills that exists in Gloucester’s Animal Control Department.  Government employees are not paid to provide arrogance and intimidation, they are paid to provide Public Service.  Had the Animal Control Department been operating properly the issue of the feral cats would not have wasted the Board of Supervisor’s and County staff’s time.

 

Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Gloucester Point

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN

Voted

Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Related articles

• Steve Baranek, Gloucester, VA Animal Control Admits To Illegal County Ordinance
• Stray cat crisis hits W.Va.'s Eastern Panhandle
• North Las Vegas in search of a more humane solution for feral cat population
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 4)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 3)
• Gloucester, VA County Services Outrageous Costs, $600 Per Cat and Dog In November

Steve Baranek, Gloucester, VA Animal Control Admits To Illegal County Ordinance

You have to watch this video.  In here above, Steve Baranek, chief Animal Control officer for Gloucester County, admits to local ordinance, 3-16, is not mirrored from state code.  According to the Dillon Rule, that is illegal.  Here you see county officials blatantly violating the laws of the state.

  The above video is downright idiotic.  Feral cats are feral and have no owners unless someone is taking care of them, then whomever is taking care of them is the owner, like it or not.  Cats defecating is no different than birds defecating.  Sue the Governor.  It's his property.  There is no violation due to defecation.  3-16 is an illegal ordinance.

Again you have to watch this video.  It is beyond idiotic.  Ashley Chriscoe argues for more illegal laws continuing his march towards an extreme socialist  fascist ideology government concepts  that may be due to his association with the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust.

  There are arguments to put cats on leashes.  How hysterical.

Let's look at some facts.  At certain times of the year, birds migrate to certain types of trees that produce a certain type of berry that the birds love.  Very large flocks of birds circle these trees for hours once these berries are ripe and they eat them.  The birds then circle for hours defecating all over everything within a short radius of where these trees are located.  The mess is unreal.  Can we get animal control to come and trap all of these birds for being a nuisance?  Charge the Governor because they are essentially his birds?

  Mr Bazanni, you can not create local ordinances where there are no state codes to support them.  If you could, then government would run rampant all over the place, which it already does and which "WE THE PEOPLE", have been fighting against for some time and will continue to fight.  WE DO NOT WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INTRUSIONS IN OUR LIVES!

     We will not tolerate a totalitarian government which is what you all seem to be leaning towards.

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN

Voted

Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Retaliates Against Us For Exposing Them (Part One)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting, Notes, Report Card For September, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 4)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 3)

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Retaliates Against Us For Exposing Them (Part One)

Retaliation.  Above what you see is Animal Control officer Jeff Stillman taking pictures of me while I was at a local Animal Swap meet at Tractor Supply a couple of weeks ago.  I was with a couple of friends and met with other people who I know at this meet.  The pictures were taken of not only me, but also a couple of the friends I was with.  What set this off?  Nothing that I did.  I could care less that he was there.  I was not even aware that he was doing this until one of the people I was talking with told me he was taking my picture.

Once I was made aware of what he was doing, it became a battle of the cameras.  It would seem clear that this is retaliation for my reporting issues surrounding other Animal Control officers and how they seem from every appearance, to be following made up illegal county ordinances as well as reporting on them as they use government vehicles for personal use.

After several minutes of the Battle of the Cameras, he pulled behind Tractor Supply and called in the Sheriff's department.  Numerous deputies showed up.  After about another 10 minutes, several Sheriff's deputies get out of their vehicles along with Jeff and then they walk up to where I am with a friend and stare us down.  Since that did not work for them, they removed themselves to the middle of the swap meet and it became a Mexican standoff.  I was not about to leave just because they wanted to be intimidating.

Now is this stalking by Jeff Stillman against me and my friends?

  https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/victims/documents/stalking.pdf

That is a tough one.  Technically, Animal Control in the state of Virginia are not considered law enforcement in one area but are in other areas.  They are not police.  Do they have the authority to conduct public investigations?  Not from what I could find.  What right did he have to do this?  If he was out of uniform?  Who cares.  But he was in uniform and on county, hence, taxpayer time.  Am I even someone who needs to be checked out for animal issues?  Don't you have to own animals first?

So if I can not be considered someone who needs to be watched for past animal abuses, then why is he doing this?  All we can come up with is this is pure retaliation.

This picture above is from a story we did on Animal Control where this deputy was about to break into a vehicle and take someone's personal property.  The owner came out just in time.  She was acting on what we have shown to be an illegal county ordinance in our view based on all available state codes and the Dillon Rule research.

That illegal ordinance is in the sign above, again, based on our research and reported here on this site.

Jeff Stillman still has a job even though we reported this issue to county officials.  What did they do, just slap him on the hand while patting him on the back for this retaliation?  This is only part of the story.  There is more coming soon.  This guy carries a gun.  Do I feel safe knowing he is still on the road?  No.  But there seems to be no state law against what he has done.  That means we are all in danger with this guy being out there and county officials don't seem to care.  Who is next?  You?  Will he decide to not use a camera the next time and use his gun?  Who knows?  Either way, it seems clear that he is unstable.

Steve Baranek from another story we did on Animal Control.

This picture was taken inside of Buying It Used, owned by yet another Animal Control deputy.  The above is of County property.  How was it acquired?  It's against county ordinance for county employees to buy county used goods from the county auction site which is how county property is supposed to be disposed of.  The projector says Petsworth School on it's side.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 3)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Caught Breaking The Law.......Again
• Gloucester, VA What Glo-Quips Didn't Tell You, July, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 4)

Animal Control Criminals of Gloucester, VA Should Be Fired?

Recently we showed how the deputies of  Animal Control in Gloucester, Virginia were in violation of a number of their own ordinances, making them criminals without any regard for the law, what we are now going to show is the state law that shows that these criminals need to be fired for their actions in our view.  Below in the slideshare container is the story in PDF format that shows what ordinances these deputies have violated in our view as well as picture evidence of those violations.  We are linking the original story at the bottom of this post as well.

Gloucester Animal Control In Violation of Ordinances? from Chuck Thompson

Here is the state code of Virginia that shows that these criminals need to go in our view.

§ 3.2-6557. Animal control officers and humane investigators; limitations; records; penalties.

A. No animal control officer, humane investigator, humane society or custodian of any pound or animal shelter shall: (i) obtain the release or transfer of an animal by the animal's owner to such animal control officer, humane investigator, humane society or custodian for personal gain; or (ii) give or sell or negotiate for the gift or sale to any individual, pet shop, dealer, or research facility of any animal that may come into his custody in the course of carrying out his official assignments. No animal control officer, humane investigator or custodian of any pound or animal shelter shall be granted a dealer's license. Violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall preclude any animal control officer or humane investigator from lawfully impounding any animal pursuant to § 3.2-6569.

B. An animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, humane investigator or custodian of any pound or animal shelter, upon taking custody of any animal in the course of his official duties, or any representative of a humane society, upon obtaining custody of any animal on behalf of the society, shall immediately make a record of the matter. Such record shall include:

1. The date on which the animal was taken into custody;

2. The date of the making of the record;

3. A description of the animal including the animal's species, color, breed, sex, 

approximate age and approximate weight;

4. The reason for taking custody of the animal and the location where custody was taken;

5. The name and address of the animal's owner, if known;

6. Any license or rabies tag, tattoo, collar or other identification number carried by or appearing on the animal; and

7. The disposition of the animal.

Records required by this subsection shall be maintained for at least five years, and shall be available for public inspection upon request. A summary of such records shall be submitted annually to the State Veterinarian in a format prescribed by him.

C. Any animal control officer or custodian of any pound who violates any provision of this chapter that relates to the seizure, impoundment and custody of animals by an animal control officer may be subject to suspension or dismissal from his position.

D. Custodians and animal control officers engaged in the operation of a pound shall be required to have knowledge of the laws of the Commonwealth governing animals, including this chapter, as well as basic animal care.

We can not argue for suspension as it would imply that these criminals, in our view, would have only transported one animal, one time in a hazardous and inhumane way.  It is clear that this would not be the case.  Each and every Animal Control Officer is required to know state codes as well as local ordinances.  for them to even considering claiming they had no idea is not justified.

§ 15.2-612. Manager responsible for administration of affairs of county; appointment of officers and employees.

The county manager shall be responsible to the board for the proper administration of all the affairs of the county which the board has authority to control. To that end he shall appoint all officers and employees in the county's administrative service, except as otherwise provided in this form of county organization and government, and except as he authorizes the head of a department or office responsible to him to appoint subordinates in such department or office. All appointments shall be based on the ability, training and experience of the appointees which are relevant to the work which they are to perform.

County Administrator, Brenda Garton would be the one now who is responsible for firing them or comes under full responsibility for the criminal behavior of these criminals without any regard for the laws based on the above from what we are reading.   Someone has to speak for all the animals who are not able to speak for themselves that have been hamed, treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways by Animal Control Officers.  

Now of course, we are not attorneys and none of this should be considered legal advice in any way, only a competent attorney can legally advise you.  We are only asking questions based on our research and showing our opinions based on that research.  Should the research prove correct, we would expect appropriate actions to go fourth.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• Hidden-Camera Investigation Results In Arrest Of Animal Control Officer
• "The Land of the Life Worth Living"
• Gloucester, VA Officials Honor Animal Cruelty Criminal?
• Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continues
• Connecting The Dots of Gloucester Officials Corruption?