Gloucester VA Links and News: Animal Control

Showing posts with label Animal Control. Show all posts

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Request To Expand Body Cam Use In Gloucester County, Virginia

Photo property of The Austin Chronicle.

Body cams are rapidly becoming the norm in American police departments because of their probative value in documenting encounters between law enforcement and the citizenry. They are also increasingly being used by other government employees like Animal Control officers and codes, building, storm water management and other such inspectors. Sometimes animal owners, property owners, contractors and others aren’t very happy when issued code violations. Sometimes animal officers, inspectors and other such public servants are over zealous in the performance of their duties. Body Cameras are a good way to promote integrity on both sides of public service transactions and the most reliable way to document contentious situations. Body cams are also a good way for leadership to insure employees are properly doing their jobs and acting accordingly when they encounter people in the community.

Since the deployment of body cams by our Sheriff’s Department, we have learned the $300 to $1,000 cost per camera is not the only costs associated with using body cams. There are camera repair and replacement costs, data storage costs and costs for the labor intensive processes of viewing, processing and logging hours of video. Available data suggests these costs can equate to between $1,500 and $4,500 per camera per year, but also suggests these costs will likely drop as more localities implement body cam use. Despite the costs, body cams enjoy very strong public support, with 88 percent of those surveyed in an Economist/YouGov poll backing their use.

Considering Gloucester was fortunate enough to have the Sheriff’s department body cams donated and has already invested funds in data storage and processing labor, it only makes sense to take the next step by outfitting our Animal Control officers with body cams. Doing so will enhance the County Administrator’s management of Animal Control officers, enable them to know where their vehicles are and actually see what the officers are doing while they are out in the community. Animal control has already established a history of making separate audio and video recordings of encounters with citizens, but such recordings have only commenced and ended at the pleasure, convenience and whim of the Animal Control officers. Why not take the next step by combining the two recordings in a continuous format that will level the playing field between the officers and the citizens? Outfitting Animal Control officers with body cams will also provide far more clarity of what actually takes place from the beginning to the end of officer and citizen encounters.

The annual costs to outfit Animal Control with body cams will be insignificant in comparison to the benefits we have outlined. Funding should be dedicated in the FY 18 budget to cover the costs of outfitting all of our Animal Control officers with body cams.

What is your opinion?

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Gloucester Virginia Animal Control Trolling For Unlicensed Fish?

The above picture was sent to us from a concerned citizen who took the picture after watching Animal Control driving around what used to be called Yacht Haven and is still the Yacht Haven area. Were they looking for unlicensed fish there? Did someone file a complaint about unlicensed fish seen swimming in the York River? By what right does Animal Control have in patrolling areas outside of county owned land and even then, by what right do they have to even do that without a complaint being filed?

Just more waste from the county of your hard earned tax dollars. If these folks are that bored, then they are not needed and the county can save a lot of money by getting rid of this excess bloat. It was reported as vehicle number 73. Date was April 21st, 2015 at 10:40 AM. This isn't even patrolling, this is just down and outright trolling.

The picture was taken with a cell phone and we edited it by fixing some of the colors and straightening out the picture. Who knows? Maybe they had to pick up a very special delivery.

Friday, April 17, 2015

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.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

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.

(in the first person) expressing the future tense.

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

expressing a strong assertion or intention.

"they shall succeed"
3.

expressing an instruction or command.

"you shall not steal"
4.

used in questions indicating offers or suggestions.

"shall I send you the book?"

Monday, March 23, 2015

The Gloucester, Virginia Legal Case That Never Happened?

The gloucester, va case that never was from Chuck Thompson

It has been overheard that some Gloucester officials claim that the above case never happened. Well, its kind of hard to deny the evidence of the court report from that case. A case where the defendant Laura Fielder Crews was railroaded by the courts and if you will take the time to read the 96 pages here, will note with great interest that she was never allowed to speak on her own behalf.

This record comes from what was supposed to only be a hearing and defendant's husband was removed from the court as well as everyone else so the court actors could pull a very fast and dirty deal here from what I understand of the case. They changed the hearing to a trial without notice to anyone including the defendant and at the end they forced her into a plea deal. I was not a witness to this part of the case. I have read the above transcript many times and anyone who reads it has to ask, at what point was Mike Soberick, now Judge Soberick, defending his client? Looks like he threw her under the bus and was opening up major gaps for the prosecution.

But again, according to some Gloucester Officials, this case never happened. So where did this legal document come from if the case never happened? Please folks someone is trying to hide dirty laundry in my view. But is this all the evidence? Not by a long shot.

Mike Soberick Case That Never Happened from Chuck Thompson

After the charade of a case was over, the defendant went to Mike Soberick's office to get copies of the files. Well that is when Mike's secretary told the defendant that there were no files and that she must be mistaken as Mike Soberick could not have defended her. (I have him on video showing he was their attorney that has never been publicly published as of yet). We have a great deal of this case published on one of our sister sites. The sister site is dedicated to this case and is over 20 sections with a great deal of detail of the absolute corruption that took place in my view.

Again, based on my research on every aspect of this case, the entire case was predicated on fraud at every level is my opinion. For some reason, these folks think they can do the same again, against this defendant having been successful in the past. One of the many ways to defend against these folks is to show the world what they are doing, what they have done and what the actual evidence shows. Never hesitate to expose them at every level and name every name.

Post it, publish it. Expose every little detail of the case for everyone to see. Hide nothing. Let them defend against the real truth once its shown to everyone. Watch them all squirm when you talk to them about it. Why? Because this case never happened. We have so much evidence of this case, but they will still tell you it's all fabricated and not true. And here is some major evidence to help them out with their story. Right down to Mike Soberick's own signature. Major parts of the evidence against them comes from them and is their own evidence. How does that work out for them? Like the picture at the top of the post here. It's their own picture after they raided the property listed in the record. They call the defendant crazy because they have a lot to hide. I am not hiding any area of this case. Everyone is welcome to see every aspect of it. Ask all the questions you want. Illegal search warrants and all.

Illegal Search Warrant, Virginia ??? from Chuck Thompson

Wait, I did say something above about an illegal search warrant now didn't I? I thought so. Well here it is. This was posted on the defendant's property after they took the defendant to jail and she never saw it until she came home the next day and found it posted on her property. The above is all the defendant had for several years. I had to do a FOIA request to get the rest that was supposed to be there and still never got everything I asked for.

Let's go over the above warrant to see why I believe its illegal. It was signed by a deputy court clerk without any authorization at the time they ever proved, by any magistrate or judge. (They still have never proved it was authorized by anyone other than the court deputy clerk). She marked the warrant she signed as though she was a magistrate. That is issue number one. Number two. Both the US as well as the Virginia Constitutions make it very clear that broad search warrants can never be created and issued. The search warrants must be very specific as to whom and what is to be searched and it must be based on evidence by an independent witness who attests to the authenticity of their own statements and they must be willing to testify in court which never happened.

The above warrant is very broad. It does not specify anything other than the entire property and demands the confiscation of property that would not even be considered evidence of any form of a crime. But this is what one can expect here in Gloucester County, Virginia. The land of the life worth living. At least that is what they try and tell us. But again I am only giving my opinion on the case that never happened according to some Gloucester County, Virginia officials. We took this case all the way up to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who was to busy with his campaign for Governor to be bothered with it. Hell of a guy. Sorry he lost the race. That's sarcasm. Still a great deal more to come.

Oh and one more thing? Where in the search warrant does it say that the defendant was to be arrested? She was arrested during this raid and I can't find a valid reason as to why other than unsubstantiated claims that get rebuked by various witnesses in the court documents from the prosecution. How does that work? That's right. The prosecution's own witnesses testify against each other and no one catches it? Really? Who are they kidding? Read closely how the defense attorney gives the prosecutions witnesses free passes and even helps them with their case. But again, that is simply my opinion on the case that never happened.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control Still Abusing The Taxpayers

For the past 6 weeks we have been reporting abuses to the taxpayers and the people of Gloucester, Virginia as Laura Dickie of Animal Control has been using a taxpayer owned county vehicle for personal use by going out to breakfast each morning while in uniform and therefore considered to be on duty getting paid for such.

We have no problems with people eating. Everyone needs to eat. What we have a problem with is the violation to county employment rules of conduct where employees are not to use county vehicles for personal use as well as state codes, federal laws and IRS codes that also state the same. According to county employment rules, employees get a 15 minute break as well as a lunch break. These do not include using taxpayer owned vehicles for personal use to go to the local restaurants, fast food places, quick stop markets, shopping centers and the like while on break or for lunch. The employee rules are very clear on this.

What we also have an issue with is that Animal Control deputies are supposed to exhibit higher levels of conduct since they are charged with enforcing certain, yet restricted, legal ordinances or codes. (Color of Law). It becomes a serious issue of concern when you have someone who is supposed to exhibit these higher levels of conduct but instead keeps repeatedly violating these very simple basic rules. How can we trust these people? Or can we? Below are some of the many pictures we have taken showing these violations to the taxpayers of Gloucester County, Virginia. And this is minor on what goes on here.