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

NEWPORT NEWS— 

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.

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.

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.

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 4^th, 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.

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.

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 operator call testimony

View more presentations from Chuck Thompson

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?

Gloucester County Forged 911 Call?

Gloucester County Forged 911 Call?

The above video has been produced mainly for the audio recording that was used in a court of law right here in Gloucester County, Virginia. This recording was both submitted and accepted as evidence. The 911 operator, one  Holly M Cohoon, even testified to it. Well if you have played this once already, did you actually hear what was being said? There are way too many issues with it to be authentic. It is our professional opinion that this is a forged recording. You may want to play this a few more times and  listen carefully to the recording.

Before we go too far, I must state that I have also altered this call in a slight way. I removed a very tiny section where the caller states her address. This was done to protect this party. Other than that, the call is exactly what was played in a local court. So let's look at some of the issues.

1. The caller to the 911 operator goes through at least five different emotions during a brief one minute and 6 second call.  Even in a mental institution, the worst patients do not go through that many emotions in that fast a period.
2. The 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, tells the caller not to shoot out the door. The caller never stated she was even by a door. The 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, does not state that once, but instead she states it multiple times so you know she isn't making a mistake.
3. In less than 40 seconds, the 911 operator, Holly M Cohoon, breaks every form of protocol and states that there is already a sheriff's deputy outside. She does not radio for a patrol car, she does not stop the conversation to verify that there is a deputy outside. She flat out states it.

We had a 911 operator from another area analyze this call and we were told that there was no way it could possibly be authentic in their professional opinion, which matched our opinion.

Now this has everything to do with what we have been reporting about. This does tie into the reports of Gloucester County Officials ignoring our requests for information and also our report on the search warrant. This call took place on May 4^th, 2010. Numerous off-duty sheriff's deputies were all over the property. What alarmed the caller to the 911 operator was The fact that an unknown male called to the defendant's telephone screaming for the defendant/occupant of this home to get out of the house immediately. The reason was never stated. (Yes, we will show that a reason was never stated in a later article). What further alarmed the defendant/occupant was that when she looked out the window, she saw an unidentified intruder beating a dog in the front yard with a metal pipe. 

The occupant of the home hung up on the unidentified caller and called 911. There was no reason whatsoever for anyone to be calling the occupant and ordering her to get out of the house.  

Now this next part is only what we have been told from a person inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office and we have no way to prove it. In fairness, we can only report what we were told. This was a "Fun Raid," ordered by sheriff Steve Gentry. This "Fun Raid" had dual purposes. One, the occupant of this home had made a complaint about members of the Gloucester Sheriff's Office via a letter to Steve Gentry. Two, the home was within a certain demographic in that the owners/occupants were known gun owners and in an upper economic bracket.

What we were told is the "Fun Raid" was for the purpose of grabbing the guns and whatever cash and/or other valuables could be easily taken. What went wrong? First, no one expected anyone to be home in the house.  Second, because the owners/occupants own animals, Animal Control was called in to take over and legitimize the so-called "search."

Okay, in all reality, that seems pretty far fetched even for me to fully grasp. We were told by the person inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office that this is fairly common and the way they normally get away with it is by creating a shoot-out with whomever the target is and killing them. This particular victim lived --through a series of good luck and cooperating at the right times. Again, I have no way to verify these statements made but it does make sense as to why the search warrant is so sloppy and full of errors. It was produced during this event to cover tracks is what we believe. It would also start to explain why the 911 call, in our professional opinion, is forged.

Now if you really consider this that hard to believe, we are nowhere near the end of the story. It continues to get a lot worse and there is so much more.

A Grand Conspiracy In Gloucester County Law Enforcement and The Courts?

A Grand Conspiracy In Gloucester County Law Enforcement and The Courts?

Today we are kicking off what will become a very long story told over the upcoming months with more twists and turns than you could ever imagine. We have been and will continue to invite members of the press and other law enforcement agencies to follow these stories as they are all intertwined together and will prove to shake the very foundations of Gloucester County and eventually, our nation. This is a story that we have been working on for the past two years and have interviewed numerous people, put together a huge database of information and evidence to include pictures, court documents, recordings, videos, testimony, digital data and more. We have hundreds of pages that we will be presenting and it is just way to much to cover in one or several articles.

Some of what will be presented can only be stated as opinion because we are being blocked from receiving information that may or may not say otherwise. So it is only fair to report on what the opinions are and support those opinions with as much fact as we have on hand. Other areas will be based on fact of evidence that is undeniable. We have also been putting together facts of Virginia law to show we are not making anything up at any time nor are we spouting opinion of our own interpretations of the law.

We will do everything in our power to be as fair as possible as much as possible in bringing you these stories. At the present moment, it is our opinion that there is in fact a grand conspiracy here in Gloucester County with our law enforcement and in our court system to manipulate and to deceive the public and we have had inside input on such. A deputy inside the Gloucester County Sheriff's office has come forward and given deep detailed information on where to look and what to look for in order to present the stories along with what transpired in given events that we will be bringing you. Now with all of this said, we will now present you with our first case and the first section of the story on this case that begins after this opening. Please see Gloucester Officials Ignore Freedom Of Information Requests.