Showing posts with label Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fraud. Show all posts

Monday, March 4, 2019

Legal Brief Calls For Circuit Court Judge Jeffery W Shaw's Arrest

A legal brief filed in court on February 19th, 2019, listed as a Notice, Motion of Default, calls for the arrest and conviction of Circuit Court Judge, Jeffery W Shaw.  Said arrest and conviction is not limited to just Judge Shaw, but also a number of others as well.  The arrest and conviction of Judge Shaw is found on page 23 of the document ported into this article and seen below.  78 Federal charges of premeditated fraud with malice are claimed in the document.  Total charges start at over 9 million dollars and claim RICO charges as well which triple the amount of the charges to a new total of over 27 million dollars.

  A demand for the professional bonds of both Judge Jeffery W Shaw and Attorney Bruce E Arkema, of Durrette, Arkema, Gerson & Gill P.C. law firm have been set forth in the mtion for
default filed.
(By: Liberty Law)

The motion for default is due to a failure to answer previous briefs filed with the court and presented to the plaintiff's and their attorney and Judge Shaw ignoring the fact that plaintiff's refused to answer said filings.  Filings challenged jurisdiction.  Papers were filed in King William County where the civil case issues are located, but from what we know, Judge Shaw held court in Gloucester County, creating a serious jurisdictional issue.  Jurisdiction was challenged and while in court, judge Shaw denied the demand that challenged Jurisdiction.  According to adjudicated Supreme Court rulings, once jurisdiction is challenged, everything must stop and jurisdiction must be proven.  Judge Shaw failed to follow this.

The court papers are below and include court stamps on several pages.

Judge Jeffery W Shaw Arrest Legal Filing from Chuck Thompson

What comes next is not within our knowledge.  We report information as it is brought to us on this case.  We sat in several of the court hearings on this case and can attest to a number of facts here.  

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Circuit Court Judge Jeffery W Shaw Orders Removal Causing Multiple Assaults Against Council

(By:  Liberty Law)
Gloucester County, Virginia.  Circuit Court Judge, Jeffrey W Shaw orders removal of defendant's council resulting in multiple assaults against council.  No valid reason can be found for Judge Jeffrey W Shaw's order to remove a defendant's council in court yesterday.  Defendant's council is a 67 year old woman, about 5 foot 2 inches and weighing in at about 100 lbs.  Council was simply explaining law to Mr Shaw but he refused to hear the law.  He ordered the removal of council and the bailiff, who had just moments before called for backup, grabbed the arm of this senior citizen, brought it around her back and then proceeded to use force by both twisting her arm and moving it in an upward position, exerting unnecessary force and causing pain.  She tried to continue to explain the law to Mr Shaw all the while the bailiff continued his excessive force and a second bailiff coming in and using additional force against this woman.

  We were there and are witnesses to this event along with a host of others.  Affidavits are now being created that will be signed and notarized and sent to the highest authorities in the nation.  Two bailiffs using excessive force in a premeditated fashion, with malice, against a 67 year old woman who is only 5 foot 2 inches weighing in at about 100 lbs posses no threat.  She was thrown out of the court for the rest of the case all for explaining law to a judge?  No complaints are being filed with the sheriff's office as we do not believe this incident should be a reflection of that office.  The two bailiff's will probably be sued as individuals for their own actions as well as the court for failing to prevent the excessive force as it was happening.  And all of this happened because Judge Jeffrey W Shaw does not believe in the United States Constitution for which he was sworn into office and pledged to uphold.  The situation above all happened because this woman was explaining the defendant's Constitutionally guaranteed rights to Mr Shaw.  Additional lawsuits will now be filed against Judge Jeffery W Shaw for his actions in the court yesterday.  

Circuit Court Judge, Jeffery Shaw Admits Fraud?

Yesterday in Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court, Judge Shaw challenged defense's council asking council if council had a license to practice law.  Council was very quick to respond that no one has a license to practice law.  No judge, no lawyer posses such an item.  Judge Shaw did not refute this.  It was made very clear in Circuit Court yesterday that no judge or no lawyer has a license to practice law despite Virginia statutes that state as follows: "§ 54.1-3904. Penalty for practicing without authority.
(By:  Liberty Law)

Any person who practices law without being authorized or licensed shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A collection agency may refer debts to an attorney for collection with the creditor's approval of the referral and the fee arrangement and shall not be deemed to be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. An attorney is permitted by the creditor's authorization to enter into such representation agreements".

  Well the above does state, authority, but for one, that is a violation of the 6th amendment, which reads as follows: "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".   The assistance of council.  That does not at any point state, lawyer, attorney, member of the bar.  Council explained to Judge Shaw that council has congressional authority in the courts which I would suggest trumps any license.  Now a serious question, what does authorized mean?  The Virginia statute above does not make sense as it fails to explain authorization.  A violation of the creation of codes.  Therefore, the code does not stand.  It's a conflict of interest.

  So Judge Shaw said he would not permit council for the defense to be heard, in violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment, 11th amendment and the 14th amendment.  Judge Shaw wanted a Bar membership number.  A bar membership number is nothing more than a club membership.  It is supported by attorney's for attorney's and is used as a violation in modern times to steal the rights of the people in the court system.  I would dare to say it's tantamount to fraud at it's highest levels and in direct violation of laws against monopolies, rico act and racketeering.  In fact, I have several friends who are lawyers.  I have asked several if there was actually any such thing as a license to practice law.  They answered, NO!  There is no such thing as a license to practice law.  It does not exist.  It is only in the statutes to confuse people.

  So no judge is licensed to practice law.  No lawyer is licensed to practice law.  They are only authorized to practice law?  Who gives such authorization?  Well, they do.  That folks is a monopoly, racketeering, and a violation of the RICO act.  It's also fraud because they never disclose this information to you in my opinion.  It's concealment.  It's premeditated with malice.  And to top this off?  It's done under the guise of justice, and protecting you?  Where is the justice?

  Ah, but this continues to get even better folks.  In the next article, I will go into detail of what I call crimes committed in Judge Shaw's court.  The case heard yesterday is part of the lawsuit against Judge Shaw, but he can not do anything about the lawsuit.  In fact, he made it much worse yesterday.  There will be another one based on what happened in his court.  (Why is it his court?  It belongs to the people.)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Are Gloucester County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments Corrupt? You Decide

During a recent Gloucester Board of Supervisor and School Board candidate forum, York District Candidate Kevin Farmer expressed concerns about real estate tax rates and real estate tax assessments. § 58.1-3201 of the Code of Virginia requires all property to be assessed at 100% of fair market value. If that is the case, why does Gloucester County seem to adjust the values of property based on the amount of money needed to run our local government? I have been asking that question ever since Gloucester County Assistant Administrator Garrey Curry explained such to me about three years ago. When Mr. Curry rendered his explanation to me and another citizen, I told him under the method he described, one key element is left out of the equation; fair market value of the property.

During the candidate forum, current board members mocked at Mr. Farmer’s assertion that increases in certain real estate assessment values is how they have avoided increasing real estate tax rates each year. In Mr. Farmer’s defense, the County, through certain assessment value increases, increased revenue from real estate property taxes by $3 million since 2012.

I became even more skeptical of Gloucester’s assessments in 2016 when the Board of Supervisors approved a land swap deal with Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr.; in which the County traded two pieces of property for one of Mr. Kerns’ properties. When the deal was first presented to the Board of Supervisors, then Chairperson John Meyer publicly asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal, in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to the County.

During that time, I was an appointed At-Large member of the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee. Once I reviewed the seven properties contained in the land swap proposal, I discovered serious flaws in the assessment values of the three key properties contained in the deal. I pointed the flaws out to the Board and an independent appraiser was hired by the County to determine the value of the properties.

When the Board approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the independent appraisal values. The combined value of the County’s two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of the County’s two former properties after the deal changed to $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns' former property changed to $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from the County. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from the County was assessed by the County to be worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on the County. Not wanting to be associated with corruption, I resigned from the Utilities Advisory Committee immediately after the Board approved the corrupt land swap deal.

The land swap deal story did not end there. Three months after the Board approved the deal, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed one of Mr. Kerns new properties as being sold for $55,000. According to online property records; Mr. Kerns sold it to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. Why didn’t the Board offer the property to the adjacent landowners before trading it to Mr. Kerns? Even Mr. Kerns’ offered to sell his property to Supervisor Meyer before offering it to the County. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value; saving $25,000.

One can’t help but wonder if the whole corrupt land swap deal was perpetrated to keep anything from being built at the entrance to Supervisors Meyer’s and Mr. Kerns’ estates. One can easily assume the recent paving of the entrance of Summerville Road to the end of Mr. Meyer’s property line was funded with money from the land sold by Mr. Kerns. One could also easily assume this was done to move the entrance to Mr. Meyer’s estate so it is easier to find by his Airbnb customers. Despite whether or not these assumptions are correct, one fact remains; manipulation of the assessment values is clearly evident and is nothing short of government corruption. This deal needs to be investigated and those found guilty of corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption need to be held accountable.

Below we have provided a listing of randomly selected waterfront properties in four different areas of Gloucester County. Notice how the smaller the property is, the higher the assessed value per acre is. We have also provided a Slideshare presentation of Frequently Asked Questions about real estate tax assessments. 

Email comments to:
To read a detailed account of the corrupt land swap deal click on this link: 

Waterfront Property Heywood Creek Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34244             1.39               $209,110                  $150,439

13952            1.46               $260,770                  $178,609

30791            1.48               $208,560                  $140,919

43160            1.51               $145,940                  $96,649

26229            2.53               $222,950                  $88,123

10669            2.67               $243,790                  $91,307

30679            3.43               $280,310                  $81,723

13369            9.33               $364,960                  $39,117

33757            12.6               $404,020                  $32,065

31355            170.476        $636,730                  $3,735

Bena Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

28739            1                     $225,000                  $225,000

21922            1.25               $233,200                  $186,560

19725            2.88               $201,090                  $78,955

27404            5.25               $296,720                  $56,254

40850            6.39               $342,070                  $53,532

27619            6.46               $817,360                  $126,526

21425            9.3                  $365,060                  $39,254

21951            13.11             $402,110                  $30,672

41567            13.54             $346,810                  $25,540

14341            58.35             $1,190,730              $20,406

Ware Neck Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

16800            0.75               $211,490                  $281,987

21047            0.96               $222,850                  $232,135

22199            1.44               $256,780                  $178,319

16984            1.88               $239,750                  $127,527

10396            2.01               $233,520                  $116,179

23437            2.36               $236,480                  $117,652

22617            5.02               $340,480                  $67,825

43034            6.9                  $417,910                  $60,567

18864            7.39               $209,550                  $28,356

31023            342.57          $1,510,140              $4,408

Gloucester Point Area

RPC                Acres             Assessed                  Per Acre

34254            0.296             $131,440                  $444,054

29005            0.361             $145,470                  $402,963

30469            0.52               $178,910                  $344,058

18220            0.6                  $189,900                  $316,500

12063            0.93               $221,220                  $237,871

30104            1.23               $258,690                  $210,317

29202            1.49               $263,000                  $176,510

33908            2.49               $482,670                  $193,843

15105            3.58               $246,770                  $68,930

22581            17.49             $534,910                  $30,584

Slideshare presentation of frequently asked question about real estate tax assessments. (Compiled by Albemarle County, Virginia)

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Gloucester County Supervisor’s Trees Destroyed By Tree Trimmers

I never cease to be amazed at the things that happen in this county. The following entry is contained in the Gloucester County, Virginia Utilities Department June report:

“Resolved the complaint from adjacent property owner that tree removal for replacement of Pump Station #12 with Smith & Loveless package station  encroached on their property by requiring the contractor plant replacement trees to satisfy property owner;”

I’ll be damned!! After obtaining way more land than needed, in what I and others consider nothing short of a public corruption property deal, they encroach upon the adjacent property owner’s land to make room to install a new sewer pump system.

As many of you may know; I served on the Gloucester County Public Utilities Advisory Committee for a couple of years or so. I resigned from the committee in 2016 after the committee and the Board of Supervisors approved what I and others strongly believe was a public corruption land deal between Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. and the Utilities Department. We consider the deal to be public corruption primarly because it appears evident the Gloucester County tax assessor or another person or persons with access, lowered the assessed value of Utilities Department properties and increased the assessed value of Mr. Kern’s property. Click here to read the Gloucester County public corruption land deal story:

At-Large Supervisor John Meyer, who is also the owner of the destroyed trees, had this to say in response to an email I sent to the Board of Supervisors about the tree debacle.
“No less amazed than I.  The professional tree service 1) did not know where the property line was and 2) allowed the large trees they were cutting to fall across the property line, wiping out a half-dozen smaller trees in the process.
The County did hold the tree-service responsible and they did replace the trees (six-footers) at no additional cost to the County.
Next time you head down Belroi, take a look at the way Dominion Power mangled the trees between the 1st entrance to Courthouse Square and the Summerville Apartments.  Somebody on their payroll doesn’t like trees!

Proper communication with the tree company and supervision of the trimming by the Utilities Department would have likely prevented the destruction of Mr. Meyer’s trees. As for Mr. Meyer’s complaint about the appearance of trees on Belroi Rd; well I guess now that it has happened on the road to his estate he can see something that has been the norm for decades. First, it is far cheaper to trim trees than to completely remove them. Second, if Dominion hated trees as Mr. Meyer suggests, they would find a way to cut all of them down instead of just trimming them. Maybe the Board of Supervisors can drum up another corrupt crony capitalism deal to get the power lines buried down Belroi Rd. Then the trees Dominion Power chopped up can grow out again, so VDOT can come along and chop them up again. Isn’t it just awful living in an aesthetically imperfect world? But then again; in a free society no individual or class of individuals has the right to determine what should or should not be considered visually appealing to other people; not even the elected class.   

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point

Crony Capitalism defines crony capitalism as; an economy that is nominally free-market, but allows for preferential regulation and other favorable government intervention based on personal relationships. In such a system, the false appearance of "pure" capitalism is publicly maintained to preserve the exclusive influence of well-connected individuals.
Sound familiar??

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Gloucester County, Va. Real Estate Tax Assessment Corruption??

Gloucester, VA - Picture taken for the new Gloucester Links & News website.

You Decide

If this story does not cause you to question the integrity of the Board of Supervisors and real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County, Virginia, nothing will.

On October 4, 2016 the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a land swap deal between Gloucester’s Department of Public Utilities (Utilities) and Gloucester resident Charles Kerns, Jr. When the land swap proposal was first presented to the BOS, then Chairman John Meyer asked, “Is the concept of swapping properties the way the County wants to do business?” He then said, “Sounds like it has the potential for a win win.” As it turns out, Supervisor Meyer had a stake in the land swap deal; in that the entrance to his personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns traded to Utilities. Supervisor Meyer’s personal involvement is further exemplified by Mr. Kerns’ written assertion that he also offered to sell his property to adjacent landowners. There is also significant evidence strongly suggesting there was local government corruption involving real estate tax assessments in the land swap deal. Let’s explore who actually won in the deal.

The story as I know it started to form while I was serving on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC). During a Committee meeting in late 2015, the Director of Utilities spoke briefly about a possible land swap deal between Utilities and Mr. Kerns. During the same meeting the Director also spoke about failing septic systems in the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project (Project) area. (This Project was frozen by the BOS in 2014 due to a lack of funding and the unwillingness of property owners to commit to connecting to the system.) During that PUAC meeting the Director also spoke about Utilities’ efforts in attempting to obtain grant funding to finance the extension of public sewer down just one street in the Project area. That street was Laurel Drive and is the same street where one of Utilities’ properties involved in the land swap is located. A few months later the Director informed the committee the grant funding was unobtainable in the current fiscal year, but Utilities intended to apply during the next fiscal year. In the back of my mind I wondered if there was a connection between Utilities efforts to install new sewer service just on Laurel Drive and the land swap that he spoke of. After watching the story unfold I absolutely believe there was a connection. If public sewer were available at the Terrapin Cove lot, the owner would have been able to build a duplex or similar type of rental unit on the property instead of just a single family dwelling. In this article I will focus primarily on the assessment values of the properties contained in the land swap deal.  

The land swap proposal next came to my attention in late July 2016 when it appeared on the County’s website as an agenda item for the August 2, 2016 BOS meeting. Utilities was requesting the BOS to approve advertising a Public Hearing on the land swap deal. I found this troubling because the PUAC had not been provided with any information pertaining to the deal and had not been given the opportunity to vet it before the Director presented it to the BOS. Upon researching the locations, values and such pertaining to the properties contained in the deal; I found some highly questionable anomalies in the County’s real estate tax assessment values. The following information obtained from Gloucester County’s online real estate tax database; clearly demonstrates the anomalies I am talking about.
Assessment Comparison
RPC                Street                             Acres      2015 Assess         2010 Assess     

*14627          Belroi Rd                         1.62         $41,780               $25,000*

16706    Terrapin Cv./Laurel Dr           .32           $24,290                $45,000

10095        Booker St                            .3             $9,920                  $49,700

*/Red = Kerns property
Black = Utilities property

As you see; the County assessed values of the two Utilities properties decreased dramatically during the 2015 assessment cycle. It is also clearly evident the County’s assessed value of Mr. Kerns’ property dramatically increased during the same assessment cycle. For some strange reason, all of the dramatic shifts in property values substantially benefited Mr. Kerns.
Another anomaly I discovered was the difference in assessment values between the Terrapin Cove property and a cleared vacant property on Laurel Drive that shares a property line with the Terrapin Cove property. The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online property database reflects the differences:

Terrapin Cove and Laurel Drive Property Value Comparison
RPC                Street                       Acres          2010               2015              2017               

16706        Terrapin Cove                .32           $45,000          $24,290         $43,720

19606           Laurel Dr.                   .297          $45,000          $46,810         $46,810

As you can see; the assessment values were consistent in 2010, but in 2015 the larger Terrapin Cove property mysteriously lost value long enough for Utilities and Mr. Kerns to make the land swap deal. And look at that; after the land swap deal was completed, the Terrapin Cove property increased in value during the 2017 assessment cycle, but more on that later because those values were an unknown at the time.

When I discovered the questionable changes in the 2015 assessment values I shared them with York District Supervisor Phillip Bazzani. He in turn created a PowerPoint presentation representing my concerns that he shared with me and said he shared with the rest of the BOS and members of County staff. The PowerPoint presentation was never shown to the public. Utilities presented the land swap deal to the BOS on August 2, 2016 and the BOS sent it back to the PUAC for vetting. The BOS also instructed the County Administrator to obtain independent appraisals on all of the properties contained in the proposal.

During that same BOS meeting the County Administrator publicly said, the County Assessor said, that among other complex things (that he did not elaborate on), assessing the value of non-taxable property was not on the list of priorities to be accomplished during the 2015 assessment cycle; therefore little time was spent insuring the accuracy of those values because they are nontaxable properties. My question is; why did the values of only those two Utilities owned properties dramatically decrease when the values of the other two buildable Utilities’ properties contained in the deal experienced unusual increases in value? More about the third, unbuildable property later. Also; what caused Mr. Kerns property to increase in value so much?

The following information obtained from Gloucester’s online real estate tax database demonstrates the 2010 through 2017 assessed values of the other Utilities owned properties that found their way into the proposal Utilities presented to the BOS.

Assessment Comparison of Utilities’ Properties Contained in the Land Swap Proposal
RPC                 2010 Asses       2015 Assess       2017 Assess

28607                 $50,000              $59,970             $47,660

12656                 $35,000              $46,940             $36,100

19691                 $4,700                $4,060               $1,800

Bunting's Appraisal Service, which has a lengthy history of providing real estate services to Gloucester’s local government, was hired by Utilities to provide the independent appraisals. The following demonstrates the difference between those appraisals and the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017.

County Assessments vs. Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess    2015 Assess      Ind Apraisal        2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

As you can see; the 2016 independent appraisal values also strongly favored Mr. Kerns in comparison to the 2010 assessments and the 2017 assessments that were released only a few days after the deal was completed.

The PUAC met on two occasions to discuss the land swap deal. (Keep in mind we did not know the 2017 values) The independent appraisals had not been received by the first time we met so the discussion was tabled until they were available for review. During the brief second PUAC discussion, a vote was taken by the committee members and resulted in a split decision to recommend the BOS approve the deal. The vote was 4 to approve, 2 to disapprove and 1 member abstained from voting. I voted against the land swap deal for multiple reasons like; there was no data supported business case presented to justify acquiring the property, but the most profound reason I voted the way I did was because I clearly saw the whole deal as being government corruption. In fact, during the last PUAC discussion, one of my fellow committee members said I was just upset about the assessments and can’t let it go. He was right and I say he is part of the corruption for letting it go. Meeting Minutes from the Land swap deal Public Hearing reflect Utilities’ director insinuating I voted the way I did because I felt the Utilities property values were to low. Funny how there was no mention of me disagreeing with giving away highly marketable real estate based on his unsupported speculations. 

The BOS unanimously approved the land swap deal after a Public Hearing; during which the County Administrator said the assessment anomalies were the result of a glitch in the new assessment software and that the County assessor had notified the state about the glitch. I don’t buy it at all. But that is not where the land swap deal story ends. On February 17th the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal listed the Terrapin Cove Road property as being sold by Mr. Kerns for $55,000. According to the Gazette Journal and online property records; Mr. Kerns sold the property to the property owner who has lived right next door to the property since 1998. In other words; the two properties share a property line. I wonder if the new owner knows the whole story behind how Mr. Kerns obtained possession of the property and how the assessment values have been manipulated. Something tells me the new owner would have preferred to buy the property for the $30,000 independent appraisal value. He would have saved $25,000.

After finding out Mr. Kerns’ property had been sold; I checked the 2017 County assessment that was released to the public only a few weeks after the BOS approved the land swap deal. I could not believe my eyes. The following demonstrates the County’s assessment values of the swapped properties from 2010 thru 2017 and the 2016 independent appraisal values:

2010 thru 2017 Assessments and 2016 Independent Appraisal
RPC          Street           2010 Assess      2015 Assess    Ind Apraisal         2017 Assess           

16706    Terrapin Cv.      $45,000             $24,290             $30,000             $43, 720

10095     Booker St         $49,700             $9,920                $5,000               $26,460

*14627   Belroi Rd          $25,000             $41,780             $45,000             $41,780

*/Red = Kerns property
Black= Utilities property

When the BOS approved the land swap deal, their decision was based on the 2016 independent appraisal values. The combined value of Utilities two properties at that time was $35,000 and Mr. Kerns’ property was valued at $45,000. The combined assessment values of Utilities former properties is now $70,180 and the value of Mr. Kerns former property is now valued at $41,780. At the time the deal was approved, Mr. Kerns’ property was determined to be worth $10,000 more than the property he received from Utilities. Within days of the deal being made, the property Mr. Kerns received from Utilities became worth $28,400 more than the property he unloaded on Utilities.

So why did Mr. Kerns decide to sell or trade his property instead of building rental units on it? I guess it could have been for any number of reasons, but I have a theory that is probably not to far off target. Like I said earlier; the entrance to Supervisor Meyer’s personal estate shares a property line with the piece of land Mr. Kerns unloaded on Utilities. I believe having renters living at the entrance to his home did not sit well with Supervisor Meyer, but he opted not to pay $50,000 for the property. From there the land swap plan was hatched. I believe somewhere along the way someone with full access to the County’s real estate tax assessment database manipulated the property values of the three properties exchanged in the deal.

The land swap deal is just another example of the corruption that takes place within Gloucester County’s local government. Should there be a forensic audit performed on everything pertaining to real estate tax assessments in Gloucester County? Let us know what you think by emailing us at or by posting remarks on the Facebook post that led you here.

Kenny Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester Point
Retired United States Army

Helping to Drain the Swamp

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").

modal verb: shall
  1. 1.
    (in the first person) expressing the future tense.
    "this time next week I shall be in Scotland"
  2. 2.
    expressing a strong assertion or intention.
    "they shall succeed"
  3. 3.
    expressing an instruction or command.
    "you shall not steal"
  4. 4.
    used in questions indicating offers or suggestions.
    "shall I send you the book?"