Capias Fraud In Gloucester, Virginia?

Highly Queationable Capias, Virginia from Chuck Thompson

Above is a Capias used to arrest a local resident.  Problem is from everything I have read in the Virginia Criminal Justice rules, the above Capias was illegally put together and executed in my opinion and I will go over why here very shortly.  I am also including the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Rules so that everyone can read them and make their own interpretation.

Capias csp1 letter from Chuck Thompson

Now on page 7 of the above document it shows three areas in where a Capias may be used.  Those three areas are as follows:  Failure To Appear, Contempt of Court, and Failure To Obey A Court Order.  Now a Capias may be issued for the arrest of someone who has been indited by a grand jury on felony charges, but not on misdemeanor charges.

  In the top Capias, the defendant was ordered to be arrested for two very vague accusations of statutory violations that are both misdemeanors.  When you read the Virginia rules here, you will see that the most the court may do is issue a summons to appear to the defendant.  The only way this defendant could have been arrested is if she violated some court order, but she was not in court and has no court orders against her.  She did not meet any contempt of court order as she was not yet put before any court.  There was no failure to appear as she had not been issued any form of notice.

  So how and why did they arrest her?  This is the only document used for her arrest along with two True Bills of accusations of statutory violations made against her.  No arrest warrant(s) were ever issued or executed nor any summons ever given.  Also, the rules state that only a court clerk, magistrate, or judge may sign a Capias depending on how it is being created and for what purpose.  In this case it was signed by a deputy clerk and not the court clerk.

  It begs me to ask: are the courts somehow exempt from their own rules that they create?  I am pretty darn sure that the courts, judges whom have sat over this case and the clerks are all aware of this and this may be a very big part in why they are demanding that the defendant go through a mental evaluation.  The entire case in my opinion is based on retaliation against us and predicated on fraud throughout.  Much more coming.  

Related articles

• Congressman Bennie Thompson wants Hinds Co. Judge Weil investigated
• Contempt of Court petition against PM Nawaz
• Press freedom at stake in Lebanon tribunal case, says accused
• What About A 'Contempt Of Courts Law' To Strengthen The FOI
• Judge holds public defenders in contempt of court

Citizens of Gloucester, VA Calling For Immediate Termination of Circuit Court Clerk (Judge) Gloria Owens For Legal Violations

Citizens of Gloucester, Virginia are calling for the immediate termination of circuit court clerk, Gloria Owens for violations to the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution, article 1 section 10, General Warrants of Search or Seizure Prohibited:  That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted. http://law.justia.com/constitution/virginia/constitution.html#1S10  This is a link to the site where the Commonwealth of Virginia Code is located.  And violations to 19.2-56 as well as the possibility of impersonating a judge on a legal document.

That the above Search Warrant written by one Gloria Owens is in direct violation of the above Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional law as a request for the search and or seizure of any and all animals had no founding basis and is a direct violation of said above Virginia law.  That said 3rd party complaint did not justify such a wide open search and or inspection hence rendering said warrant null and void and in violation of both the State of Virginia Constitution and the Federal Constitution regarding Search Warrants as well as a direct violation to Virginia law 19.2-56.  And as one can see above, Gloria Owens marked the box under her signature as a judge which she is not, giving the appearance that she mis-represented herself on this legal document.

                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                           

§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals

When a sworn complaint is made to any proper authority by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such authority, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff or police officer, to search the building or place.

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                            

That upon any state representative and or law enforcement investigator whom views the above warrant in it's entirety will find that a third party complaint, that was not reliable under the terms of unconstitutional searches, was a first complaint that would only cause an investigation under 3.2-6568.  That the above 3rd party complaint was for pets inside the owners main dwelling as evidenced by Gloucester County's own records and attached to this Warrant.

That said Search Warrant can not be written and commanded by just a court clerk and requires the authorization of either a Magistrate or a Judge.  That the above Search Warrant in our opinion was written without said required authorization.  That said Search Warrant violated the evidence of facts.  That Gloria Owens signed and marked herself as a Judge in a false manor and did not add the required, "on behalf of", statement.

A freedom of information request is being pursued to determine if in fact one Gloria Owens acted on her own or if either a magistrate and or judge was contacted,where and or that permitted this violation, where further requests for termination will be called for against said person(s).  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-56 To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer

§ 19.2-56. To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

The judge, magistrate or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants, shall issue a search warrant if he finds from the facts or circumstances recited in the affidavit that there is probable cause for the issuance thereof.

Every search warrant shall be directed to (i) the sheriff, sergeant, or any policeman of the county, city or town in which the place to be searched is located, (ii) any law-enforcement officer or agent employed by the Commonwealth and vested with the powers of sheriffs and police, or (iii) jointly to any such sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent and an agent, special agent or officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Treasury, the United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the United States Department of Homeland Security, any inspector, law-enforcement official or police personnel of the United States Postal Inspection Service, or the Drug Enforcement Administration. The warrant shall (i) name the affiant, (ii) recite the offense in relation to which the search is to be made, (iii) name or describe the place to be searched, (iv) describe the property or person to be searched for, and (v) recite that the magistrate has found probable cause to believe that the property or person constitutes evidence of a crime (identified in the warrant) or tends to show that a person (named or described therein) has committed or is committing a crime.

The warrant shall command that the place be forthwith searched, either in day or night, and that the objects or persons described in the warrant, if found there, be seized. An inventory shall be produced before a court having jurisdiction of the offense in relation to which the warrant was issued as provided in § 19.2-57.

Any such warrant as provided in this section shall be executed by the policeman or other law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it shall come or be delivered. If the warrant is directed jointly to a sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent of the Commonwealth and a federal agent or officer as otherwise provided in this section, the warrant may be executed jointly or by the policeman, law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it is delivered. No other person may be permitted to be present during or participate in the execution of a warrant to search a place except (i) the owners and occupants of the place to be searched when permitted to be present by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search and (ii) persons designated by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search to assist or provide expertise in the conduct of the search.

Every search warrant shall contain the date and time it was issued. However, the failure of any such search warrant to contain the date and time it was issued shall not render the warrant void, provided that the date and time of issuing of said warrant is established by competent evidence.

The judge, magistrate, or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants shall attach a copy of the affidavit required by § 19.2-54, which shall become a part of the search warrant and served therewith. However, this provision shall not be applicable in any case in which the affidavit is made by means of a voice or videotape recording or where the affidavit has been sealed pursuant to § 19.2-54.

Any search warrant not executed within 15 days after issuance thereof shall be returned to, and voided by, the officer who issued such search warrant.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-86; 1960, c. 366; 1968, c. 572; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 289; 1979, c. 584; 1980, c. 573; 1981, c. 559; 1984, cc. 491, 598; 1988, c. 50; 1989, c. 719; 2000, c. 783; 2001, cc. 183, 205; 2007, c. 416.)

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                             

That the above Virginia law has been violated and upon a previous freedom of information request, Gloucester County officials failed to provide proof and or evidence of the date and time of issuance of the above Search Warrant.  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-54 Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer

§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...
No search warrant shall be issued until there is filed with the officer authorized to issue the same an affidavit of some person reasonably describing the place, thing, or person to be searched, the things or persons to be searched for thereunder, alleging briefly material facts, constituting the probable cause for the issuance of such warrant and alleging substantially the offense in relation to which such search is to be made and that the object, thing, or person searched for constitutes evidence of the commission of such offense. The affidavit may be filed by electronically transmitted facsimile process. Such affidavit shall be certified by the officer who issues such warrant and delivered in person, mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by electronically transmitted facsimile process by such officer or his designee or agent to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city wherein the search is made, with a copy of the affidavit also being delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city where the warrant is issued, if in a different county or city, within seven days after the issuance of such warrant and shall by such clerks be preserved as a record and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public; however such affidavit may be temporarily sealed by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing. Any individual arrested and claiming to be aggrieved by such search and seizure or any person who claims to be entitled to lawful possession of such property seized may move the appropriate court for the unsealing of such affidavit, and the burden of proof with respect to continued sealing shall be upon the Commonwealth. Each such clerk shall maintain an index of all such affidavits filed in his office in order to facilitate inspection. No such warrant shall be issued on an affidavit omitting such essentials, and no general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage shall be issued.

The term "affidavit" as used in this section, means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim.

Failure of the officer issuing such warrant to file the required affidavit shall not invalidate any search made under the warrant unless such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days. If the affidavit is filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, nevertheless, evidence obtained in any such search shall not be admissible until a reasonable time after the filing of the required affidavit.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-85; 1960, c. 366; 1973, c. 502; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 552; 1977, c. 109; 1979, c. 583; 1980, c. 362; 1981, c. 559; 1989, c. 719; 2006, c. 285; 2007, c. 212; 2008, cc. 147, 183.)



                                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         

That the above listed Search Warrant is in violation to 19.2-54 as listed here on this page.  Gloucester County, Virginia citizens can not afford and will not tolerate criminals to be employed in this county and are requesting full termination of the employment of one Gloria Owens immediately based on the above complaint.  This complaint has been sent to the Gloucester County, Virginia board of Supervisors as well as the county Administrator for action.

  Local law can not supersede state law.  No state law can supersede another state law.  Animal Control laws can not and do not supersede state search warrant laws.

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.

Related articles

• La Mesa resident prevails in illegal search case

Evidence Released Of Fake Search Warrant

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

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

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

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

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.