Showing posts with label #Gloucester Virginia#. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Gloucester Virginia#. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust Updated Jan. 2014

Based on new information, we have a correction to make about the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust, or as it is legally known, the "Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust.  The correction we are making is that it appears that this organization is in fact a non profit organization.

  Now, here is where the news lies.  They are not a charitable organization.  They are legally considered a fraternity according to online legal status information.  They are also a Trust.  What they have to do with preservation, other than their own capital, we are not sure of.  In fact, that becomes a very good question according to the financial documents we pulled from the public domain.  Why they are involved with stating they are promoting Gloucester Main Street and business is really highly questionable in our view and the views of many people who have looked at this organization.

  This organization, the way it is structured as a Trust, one has an extremely difficult time finding exactly what assets they own.  Since it's all under a trust, it is not public information.  It's listed on their 2011 tax returns that it is real estate and that the real estate is commercial and some may be residential.  Since they are a fraternity, they are a secret organization that is not required to divulge any of it's information to the public.  What we found very strange is that the organization has over 5 million dollars in real estate holdings and for 2011 depreciated over 1.7 million dollars off of the little over 5 million in said holdings.

  We can not explain it, it's right there in the 2011 tax form, a copy is just below.  They have no money stated as going out to any organizations or businesses as grants.  Yet the local paper has reported grant money given out by this organization.  How is that?  The trust was formed in 2011 but the GMSPT has been in existence since 2005.  Thier financial statements show them in a steady downhill slide since it's inception.  All because of it's massive depreciation each year?

Here is a link to the page showing their information.  Based in Norfolk, Virginia, they are supposed to be serving Gloucester, Virginia?  Again, we found that very strange.  The office phone number is a Gloucester extension, but again, the main office is listed in Norfolk.  Towards the bottom of the tax records, you will see a section where money should be listed as held for grants to be made by the GMSPT, yet there are no monies held in account for any grants.  So where is the grant money coming from?

  Salaries are mainly one to Jenny Crittendon, Executive Director for the GMSPT and listed as 50 thousand per year plus the costs of her employment are separated on the tax form.  Wages, some basic costs and then event expenses are the only reported liabilities of the GMSPT.

  Other similar, at least supposed to be, organizations are listed as charitable corporations.  That means pretty much everything they do is open to inspection.  But not the GMSPT.  Why is a fraternity so embedded into the Gloucester County government?  We are continuing to dig through all of this mess.

Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust Financial Statement, 2011 from Chuck Thompson

To open the above document into full screen mode, right click the icon at the far bottom right of the above container.  To exit full screen mode, hit the escape button on your keyboard.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 2, 2012

Shop owner suing Sheriff's Office says deputies 'emptied the accounts'

Gloucester VA Links and News

Hampton Pipe and Tobacco

After the Newport News Sheriff's Office seized hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jayson Mickle and several of his companies last summer, the tobacco shop owner says he didn't initially have the cash to pay his workers.

According to court documents, Newport News sheriff's deputies confiscated $611,388 in cash — as well as a 2011 Ford Mustang — from Mickle and his companies as part of a June 2011 investigation into the suspected sale of synthetic marijuana from his shops.

The deputies began the investigation after a new state law went into effect three months earlier banning synthetic marijuana, sometimes known as "Spice."

Shop owner suing Sheriff's Office says deputies 'emptied the accounts'  Okay, I just don't get this.  This shop sells synthetic drugs, not that I care, people are going to get stuff no matter whether it's legal or illegal.  Makes for a stronger case to legalize the real stuff, but that's another story.  Yet, we report on a woman who has been illegally raided by the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office as well as Animal Control and hardly anyone cares?

  At least Newport News found some evidence.  In this Gloucester Case, the county made up evidence and we have shown that yet the Daily Press pays no attention to it at all.  I really don't get it.

Free E-Book by Agatha Christie;  "The Secret Adversary".  Free download.  No sign ups, no questions, no kidding.  Read the stories, follow the links, get stuff, save money.  CLICK HERE  For your free download.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 12, 2012

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.

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.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

911 Dispatcher Liability?

911 Dispatcher Liability?

As we have shown in our last article, the testimony from Holli M Cohoon falls way short and inaccurate. There are legal liabilities for giving false and misleading testimony in a court of law, especially when said testimony proves to harm any person against whom the false testimony was given. Holli may just find herself working the rest of her life to pay restitution for the harm caused, and reporting and accounting for every dollar she earns every month.

Arrangements have been made to forgive any and all potential damages in exchange for her true and accurate testimony. This is a very short time offer as her testimony isn't really needed. She has two weeks from today's date to come forward. After the two week period, all bets are off.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Evidence That 911 Dispatcher Lied In Court?

Evidence That 911 Dispatcher Lied In Court?

As we said, we would get back to all of this. The above video again is made for the audio recording. This audio clip came from 9 minutes into the clip. It's file number is DW_0152 and was recorded by Steve Baranek. To put it simply, how do you mistake a shovel for a gun? You were probably thinking that in the last story, I may have lost my mind. Well I guess not after all. Looks like it's Holly who can not distinguish between a gun and a shovel. That now puts the 911 call into some very serious questions. And we are getting a lot closer to showing that maybe the two calls that came through Holly's watch have been turned into one to produce false evidence after all.

What is sad is that all of this was right in front of the attorney and he missed it. Or did he?

Some facts to keep in mind.  The defendant/occupant witnessed an intruder on her property chasing one of her dogs and trying to do bodily harm to that dog.  He was chasing the dog with a pipe.  Look at the castle doctrine, one has the right to use whatever force is necessary  to protect one's home and property.  This is highly enforced here in the State of Virginia.  

911 Call Operator Holly M Cohoon Testimony

911 Call Operator Holly M Cohoon Testimony

Our last story presenting the 911 call audio created a lot of questions and concerns. It is our opinion that the call is altered. Here is her court testimony above presented as a slide presentation. The smoking gun is right in her own testimony. She states that she remembers having a second conversation with the defendant/occupant and the defendant/occupant claiming to go out the door with a shovel. You see, it never made sense why she kept saying in the 911 call presented in this court as evidence why Holly, the 911 dispatcher, kept saying do not shoot out that door during the call. (Yes I know there is a difference between a shovel and a gun. But our upcoming story is going to clarify this).

Now it's looking more like that 911 call has been altered.

In cross examination of Holly, the attorney asks if Holly listened to a second tape of the voice recordings of the 911 calls made that day regarding this specific case. Holly states no. The attorney asks why not. Holly states she does not work there anymore. But wait, Holly did state to the prosecuting attorney that she did in fact hear this first tape recording in preparation to this proceeding. Is anyone scratching there heads yet? I sure am. Could it be that the reason a second tape was never presented is because the Sheriff's Office doctored two tapes to make one? Go back and listen to that 911 call recording again and then look at Holly's testimony. A lot of questions sure surface now.

Holly also testifies that she did not speak with any deputies at one moment of the cross examination and then states that she did speak with them via radio the next. Which is it? In an upcoming article, we are going to show evidence that Holly was not a trustworthy witness here. In fact, we will show she blew her side of the story that she was supposed to present. This was all staged in our opinion and we are going to present you with that evidence.

Holly made it very clear that she no longer works as a 911 dispatcher. Could it be because she is aware of all the mis-deeds going on at the Sheriff's Office? Was she so scared that she was willing to lie on the stand?

Thursday, May 3, 2012

New synthetic drug is dangerous - Amped

New synthetic drug is dangerous

The Above is a link to the story on-line.  Amped is the newest craze and it is sold over the counter, including right here in Gloucester, as Lady Bug attractant.  It's bad news.  There have been a number of stores popping up around Gloucester and their main business and income come from selling these synthetic drugs.  It's serious money for these purveyors.  Check out the article and keep an eye out for anything unusual with your children or loved ones. 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Gloucester County FOIA Requests For Information, Some Now Coming In

We are now starting to get some of the information we have requested.  Christi Lewis has been a tremendous help from the begging and we at least want to point out her professionalism and note that she has been on the ball since the start on helping us get the information we have been seeking.  The Gloucester County Sheriff's department has already kicked in some information that is also very helpful.  I have to make the statement, even though I am pointing out serious flaws in the system, and flaws in this starting case, not everyone should be viewed as suspicious.  Gloucester County does have a number of truly dedicated professionals working for us. We, like everyone else, have some bad apples in the mix and can not stand by and allow injustice to prevail.