Saturday, May 12, 2012

Gloucester 911 Call Was Fraudulent - More Evidence

The above video contains audio extracted from Gloucester Animal Control audio file, DW_C0152 and this audio has numerous people discussing what Holli M Cohoon had said about the one call that came through her watch.  What these people are discussing does not match the 911 audio call we have already published.  Some of the information matches, other areas show information that has been both removed from the 911 call and is also evidence of Gloucester County officials conspiring to produce false evidence against the victim in this illegal raid.  We have a lot more to say about all this in a future article.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Evidence Released Of Fake Search Warrant

We just got the green light to release this document.  We only subtracted a tiny part which is whited out that has the victim's address on this document.  This document came in from our Freedom Of Information Request filed with the county.  A copy of this filing is already published on this site.  Included in that request was a request for evidence that the documents provided were valid.  The county either ignored that part of the request or could not provide it.  Why would they ignore that part of the request?  Maybe they do not have the evidence?  Or is it because what evidence they have shows this document to be a fraud?  Or it simply never existed?

  Again, because we did in fact request proof and no proof has been given, we have been given the green light the make the following contentions about this document and the people who have signed it.

1.)  This document does NOT have a valid time and date stamp on it.  Therefore the contention is fair to say that it is illegally back dated.
2.)  This document does not have a valid case number assigned to it.  10.45 is not a case number.  Circuit Court of Gloucester already confirmed that to us.  We contend that 10.45 is actually the date of true creation.  May 4th, 2010.  10th year, 4th day, 5th month.
3.)  Based on the last posted article, we contend that this document was produced based on the audio that was created earlier that day of May 4th, 2010.
4.)  We contend that Steve Baranek and Gloria Owens have colluded and conspired to commit fraud, creating a false document to be used as evidence against the victim of this case.

See what happens when you do not follow proper procedures when it comes to legal documents?  These contentions are all fair based on the information above.  Any idiot can back date a document.  Where is the proof that it was not back dated?  Because they say so?  I don't think so.  To be fair, this document does not have to have a valid time and date stamp on it in order to prove validity.  VA Code 19.2-56  Posted below on another article.  However, no validity has been provided by Gloucester County when requested.  The other area that may have shown some form of validity would have been a valid case number.  There is no valid case number here though.   Contention stands.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fraudulent Audio Recordings Produced By Gloucester County Authorities?

The above video clip was produced to show you how easy it is to produce and manufacture false evidence.  It is no longer our opinion that Gloucester Animal Control File DW_C0152 is a complete fraud, it's our contention of such.  In our last article we told you that we would be publishing the audio where Gloucester Authorities manufactured the wording for the fake search warrant, but that we would also include the forensic audio audit with such.  Well here it is.

Just listening to the first part of the audio clip you will hear a lot of issues.  The second part only contains 4 forensic audio audits.  More can be produced from this less than one minute clip.  Again, to be fair, I removed one little section of the clip where Gloucester Authorities use the victim's address.  Because this is a victim, we are protecting this person.  Again, I can produce these same results using the county's copy of the audio.  The next article will shed more light on the fake search warrant.

  It's sad.  I can continue to spend months and produce a huge amount of forensic evidence that file DW_C0152 if a complete fraud.  I already have over 40 hours into the audio now.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Gloucester Illegal Search Warrant? Last Words, Maybe

For the most part, we consider the argument about the search warrant over.  In our opinion, the search warrant is in fact fraudulent at every level and at every angle of argument.  The reason we bring it up yet again is for two reasons.  One, there is still another area where the search warrant was not valid, and two, is because this is where the next part of our story begins.  So we are going to detail one from above and show yet another angle where the search warrant was never valid.  If you have not been following this story, you need to start from the beginning to play catch up.  There are two affiant's to this search warrant which is perfectly legal.  The original affiant's identity does not have to be legally disclosed to the defendant.  No issues here at this time.  We have already argued that the original affiant was not a trustworthy affiant.  What we have not argued, because we did not have the information until now is that the original affiant's affidavit could have only given both Animal Control and The Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, access to the inside of the house and no outside areas whatsoever if the original affiant was even considered reliable.

  Remember, we already stated that the defendant/occupant - victim, never received a copy of the affidavit attachment that was required by law.  What is also interesting is that the victim's attorney did get a copy of the affidavit but refused to show it to the defendant/occupant - victim, the attorney being, Michael T Soberick.  The victim has just seen it for the first time ever, today.  The search warrant was written out as follows, areas to be searched - a single family dwelling, it's curtilage and environs.  The so called search warrant was written way to broadly to be valid based on the original affiant's complaint.  Funny thing is, Mike Soberick saw this and both the victim and husband argued that the search warrant was not valid with him on other areas, never even knowing about this area.  I have yet to see any part of this search warrant where anyone can state it is valid and actually mean it.

Due to the nature of the confidential information on the affidavit, we are not posting it.  It will be made available only to the following entities.
1.)  Law enforcement - No Conditions or exclusions of facts
2.)  News Agencies - Conditions that certain information be kept confidential.  Details upon request.

  An area we find very interesting is that it was Judge Jeffrey W Shaw who heard this case.  The Honorable Judge Shaw and Michael T Soberick, Esq. were once law partners.  Hmm!  So what am I getting at?  It's just an observation............................Maybe.

Now could it be that the reason why the search warrant was written much broader than it should have been was because of some kind of vendetta?  A case can be made for that.  The real reason though exists in the DW_C0152 audio file.  The file we have shown in our forensic audits to not be valid in our professional opinion.  Can you guess yet what our next story is going to cover?  DW_C0152 audio with an included forensic audit report showing where the concept for how the search warrant had to be written came into play and the forensic report showing how the audio was doctored in this area.  It's really pretty hilarious when you hear the forensic audio.  You get to hear how the organic background changes in the middle of the conversation.  It's not possible for that to happen unless of course you alter the recording.

  Did we mention the go to person yet who creates these audios for Gloucester County?

Wait;  The legal stuff.  Our lawyers wanted us to mention that we are not lawyers.  So here it is.  We are not lawyers.  Now our lawyers are happy.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Gloucester County Case Update - Sgt Paul Emanuele

To date we have two highly questionable audio files provided by the county and used in a Gloucester County Court.  We have a 911 Dispatcher's testimony that does not match up to the 911 call.  We have an Animal Control officer who has testified that his audio recording, DW_C0152 is a true and accurate account of the days events yet as we continue to look real close at it, we just do not see how that could begin to be possible.  We have only grazed the evidence of Deputy Sheriff Sgt Paul Emanuele and this is where we are going to pick up today.

  If you have been following this story, below is a four minute and thirty second audio, made by Steve Baranek of Animal Control.  On the audio you hear Steve say that Paul Emanuele has just been made Sergeant.  What it takes to make it to that rank is very tough and you have to be a real sharp individual.  You not only have to qualify for the position, you also have to take and pass tests for the position.  It's not something that's just handed to someone.  So it would only be fair to give credit where credit is due.  We say that it is a very fair evaluation that Sgt Paul Emanuele is a very sharp person.

So let's again revisit his incident report for the events of May 4th, 2010 along with his involvement.

Now let's look at Sgt Paul Emanuele's statement above.  He was at the victim's address assisting numerous Animal Control Officers with a search warrant.  Let me repeat this.  Sgt Paul Emanuele was assisting Animal Control with a search warrant.  Okay.  I'll buy that for now.  Keep in mind, Sgt Paul Emanuele is a very sharp guy.

Now right above is Virginia law showing who has the power to do what.  Only a Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff or a Police Officer has the power to conduct the search.  Not Animal Control.  Looking above again at Sgt Paul Emanuele's own report, he was dispatched to this location and did not have previous orders to be there to serve a search warrant.  His own statement is that he was there to assist Animal Control, not head the search according to Virginia Law.  Is Gloucester County really going to try and argue that Sgt Emanuele made a mistake on his report?  Remember, this guy just made Sargent so you know he is very sharp. We believe this is Proof once again that there was no search warrant in place at the time both Animal Control Officers were there and the Gloucester County Sheriff's office was there.  (We now know by what Gloucester County sent us, there was no valid search warrant at that time).

  In our opinion, Sgt Paul Emanuele got caught up and sent into the middle of something very nasty.  He was doing the best he could in trying to produce something that matched the official story that the powers in Gloucester wanted told, and at the same time keep himself out of the middle of it all.  He has had to walk a very thin tight rope.  You have to feel sorry for this guy.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Gloucester Animal Control File DW_C0152, More Issues

The above is an audio file clipping made after about 9 minutes into the audio.  The file is Animal Control file DW_C0152.  It is a very small clipping that under normal circumstances most people dismiss as mere chatter background noise.  I repeat the clip 9 times in the above video.  What you hear are chopped up voices.  These are remnants from splice-outs.  Evidence that this recording is in fact altered.  Now I can show anyone in Gloucester County that what the courts are sitting on is in fact altered evidence.  I can use their files and show this all to them with no tricks at all.  In fact, I would welcome that challenge.

This is a screen shot image of the working area where I am deeply auditing the audio file.  From the clip above, this is the image used in that video.

This picture pretty much says it all.  Again, a screen shot from my working area on this audio file.  You can click on any of the images to enlarge them.

When listening to this section of the audio, there was a very drastic background inorganic noise shift that proved was a direct marker that this part of the audio was spliced in.

In the yellow highlighted box above, we have an inorganic break in the noise spectrum that is evidence of a splice.

In this section, the voice patterns had an inorganic sound to them.  So we opened the recording visuals on an expanded mode.  We found an inorganic splice in.  The voice record has also been tampered with.

Someone somewhere went through a lot of trouble to doctor this recording.  I have found tons of evidence like this throughout the entire recording.  This is just a mere sample of what is here.  Did someone in Gloucester County guess that no one would ever figure this out?  This isn't rocket science.  It is technical yes, but not rocket science.  

Gloucester County Has Us Speechless - Sends Evidence Of False Search Warrant?

Click on image to enlarge

From our requests through the Freedom of Information Act, Gloucester County just sent us most of the information we have been looking for.  For the most part, this is enough for us.  What they sent us and we received today has us pretty much speechless.  Above an updated version of the search warrant has been sent to us.  Look at the bottom right hand corner.  The search warrant was filed, hence validated at 3:14 PM on May 4th, 2010.  Below,in our last post, you hear Steve Baranek state he was on the property at 9:06 AM which was May 4th, 2010.  You also see Sgt Paul Emanuele also stated he was on the property at 8:58AM as well as others on the property already.  There was no search warrant at this time.  No search warrant existed.  It's right in front of us.  This search warrant was not valid to begin with and they sent us the proof of such.  The original affiant was NOT reliable.  Evidence is in our possession and we have now put this evidence into various areas of the cloud for protection.

  The original complaint shows that the original complainant went into areas of the defendant's home that were not within his work zone.  Therefore the original complainant conducted an illegal search.  The county had a legal obligation to check that but did not.  This invalidates the search warrant in and of itself.  Even though the  the search warrant was invalid, the search warrant was not created until many hours after both Animal Control and The Gloucester County Sheriff's Office were invading this property.

I have been told that both the DOD and Homeland security are monitoring this site.  I hope they are now monitoring this post.  On the one hand, this closes the case, on the other hand, this is also where the case begins.  I have a lot more evidence that Gloucester Animal Control audio file DW_C0152 is completely fabricated, I will show further that the 911 call is a complete fabrication.  If there were in fact a search warrant or even valid evidence for a search warrant, which we now know is wrong, why would Gloucester County go through so much trouble to fabricate these audio recordings?

  As I have already said, our inside person in the Gloucester County Sheriff's office told us, this was not the purpose of why they were there.  This started off as a "Fun Raid", and it was meant to also produce another end result.  Here is what went wrong during the "Fun Raid."  One of the sheriff's deputies found the defendant/occupant - now victim, in bed, asleep.  When news of this got out, the off duty deputies did not know what to do.  Animal Control was called in to take over the raid because the victim has animals.  Animal Control was happy to help out.

  Your tax dollars hard at work against you and are we really protected?  Are the criminals wearing the badges in this town?  The implications are enormous.  Is anyone safe from being raided?  Does this mean that every criminal case must now be re evaluated?  Every person in Gloucester County should be very concerned here.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Steven Baranek Of Gloucester Animal Control Audio File DW_0152

Gloucester Animal Control With More Fake Evidence?

I have to make this statement before going any further. If one digs enough, one can always find fault in any legal case. Overall a legal case should be very sound despite fault being found. In this particular case, I continue to find so much fault and so little sound evidence from where I am looking that one can not help but to trounce all over it.

The above audio is four minutes and thirty seconds long. Using Gloucester County's own documents, we see some very serious issues here that can not be ignored. This is audio file DW_0152 and was produced by Steve Baranek of Gloucester County Animal Control. This audio was produced using a pocket digital recorder. The date of this audio is May 4th, 2010. The entire length of this audio track is one hour four minutes and fifty five seconds long. This exact file was used as evidence in a Gloucester County Circuit Court to prosecute the defendant/occupant of the home we have been reporting on.

Below is a snapshot where Steve Baranek testifies in court that this recording is a true and accurate recording. (That also goes for the other audio clips we have already produced from this main audio).
Keep in mind that Monique W Donner, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney was well aware of this recording before going into court and she accepted this recording as evidence as did the attorney for the defense, Michael T Soberick, Esq. 

Now let's look at a section of Sgt. Paul Emanuele's Offense/Incident Report for this same case.

When we listen to the audio recording above, Steve Baranek would have us believe he is driving up to the defendant/occupant's house. Steve states that the time is 9:06. (AM). Now look at what Sgt Paul Emanuele states for the time of his dispatch and the time of his arrival at the residence. Sgt Emanuele states he was there at 8:58 (AM). That means when Steve Baranek pulls into the driveway, he should have seen Sgt Emanuele's police car and Sgt Emanuele. Yet Steve never acknowledges seeing anyone in the audio clip above that is four minutes and thirty seconds long. But wait, Steve should also be meeting a number of other people there as well according to Sgt Emanuele.

Steve should be also meeting Carl Shipley, Jeff Stillman and Shaun Doyle. Yet he never says anything either to or about these guys. How can that be? How can anyone possibly be expected to believe this recording unless Sgt Emanuele got his facts very wrong or maybe, the recording is a false and inaccurate piece of evidence? In our professional opinion, the recoding is very false and highly inaccurate. Our opinion is that the recording is so chopped and manipulated that it's not worth a thing as evidence for the county and should have been thrown out.

These days most courts do not even allow this type of evidence into the court because it is so easy to manipulate the recordings. Now what I will tell you is that I did make a few minor cuts in the above recording. The cuts I made were to the personal information that I removed to protect the defendant/occupant of this case. I also cleaned up the sound track to make the audio easier to hear and understand. No other changes were made by us.

Let's move on to the next issue. Steve Baranek starts to play with his phone and you can hear the phone keep repeating, “Say A Command”. That means you can hear what's going on through the ear piece of the phone. Yet, when he claims to be making a call, you do not hear anyone on the other side.
I find that highly unlikely and believe he was faking the call. I would love to see the phone records for that call. The time of that so-called call took place was 9:09 (AM). The proof is on Animal Control to prove this call and time is accurate as it has to 100% match up with the recording for the recording to be a true and accurate record of events. Anyone care to bet that the county can not produce this evidence? Anyone care to bet that the county does not even try?

Also, if you listen to the above audio very closely, you do hear a number of people in the background talking as well as their radio dispatches broadcasting. These are people Steve Baranek never acknowledge. Another issue, if Steve Baranek claims that he trimmed areas out of the recording because they were just not needed, well, then that is not a true and accurate record of events then is it.

Further, if it could even possibly be imagined that the above call did take place, why didn't Steve Baranek state the reason why he was there? He was there with a search warrant? He had a legal obligation to state just that or his phone call could be considered nothing more than harassment. Are you seriously going to tell me that those who are charged with investigating and must do so with the use and tools of a search warrant is not trained in the laws of such? Could this possibly be evidence that the concept of a search warrant had not even been thought of yet? See the last article and ask yourself that exact question.

So what we are looking at here, in our opinion, Steve Baranek's testimony is false and misleading and needs to be expunged from this case. The same with Holli M Cohoon's testimony. That only leaves Sgt. Paul Emanuele's testimony. In the future we will be re printing the entire 96 page court report. Sgt Paul Emanuele's testimony is pretty much nil and contributes about nothing to the case. The entire case needs to be thrown out and all charges removed in our opinion. We will elaborate on Sgt Paul Emanuele's statements and report in the future as this too has holes that are huge gaps.

I can not begin to understand how Michael T Soberick, with all the same evidence we both have and have looked at, could not begin to see any of these issues? Or did he and he just didn't do anything about them? Did he throw his client to the wolves? Come on now. Mr Soberick is a highly esteemed Gloucester County attorney. It's like we said, this case has more turns and surprises around each corner than you can ever possibly imagine.

Shaun Doyle of Gloucester Animal Control Statement?

Gloucester Animal Control File DW_0152 Clip

What we are presenting here is a small clip where there is a discussion going on between Animal Control Officer Steve Baranek and we believe Officer Shaun Doyle. The above audio has been cleaned up as much as we could clean it up so that we are able to hear the entire conversation. This audio starts at exactly 6 minutes and 36 seconds into Steve Baranek's audio recording. We have played this audio over and over and have spent hours on making sure we know exactly what was said. Steve Baranek's participation in the audio is self explanatory where Shaun Doyle's is written out.  Shaun is a fast talker.

Here is what Shaun Doyle is saying to Steve Baranek;

Shaun; “Call her again and tell her we have a search warrant. With that search warrant legally we can kick the door in by then. We have opportunity to do it in the night.”

Okay, so Steve Baranek's own recording shows without question, that he never tells the defendant/occupant of this home that he is there with a search warrant. That fact is well established. What we find difficult is why the discussion for calling her again to tell her they have a search warrant? By law, that is what they were already supposed to have done. Second, why the discussion, “With that search warrant we can legally kick the door in by then?” This part makes some sense yet it does not. These guys are already supposed to be there with a search warrant aren't they? Third and most disturbing, Shaun's statement, “We have opportunity to do it in the night.”

What? Why would anyone suggest coming back in the night to kick a door in based on a search warrant that is supposed to be for Animal Control to check on the condition of animals? Is it better to search a property and the condition of animals in the middle of the night? This conversation makes no sense and is way out of context. In fact it is our opinion and that opinion is based on what we have been told by our source inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, that there was no search warrant at this point and this is where the idea first came up. Thanks Shaun.

  Now Shaun Doyle is no longer with Animal Control and also no longer living in Virginia.  He moved to California with his wife.  When this audio recording happened, May 4th, 2010, Officer Shaun Doyle was fairly new to the position.  We are wondering if he left both Animal Control and Virginia because of issues just like this one?

We believe more was said here than should have been. But let me tell you, if you find this disturbing, wait until the next story.