Showing posts with label Gloucester Courthouse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucester Courthouse. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Accident With Fatality On 17 North and Providence, Gloucester, VA

An accident with a fatality occurred about 8:00 PM on December 15th, 2015 on route 17 north and Providence Road in Gloucester.  As we understand the situation having talked to several witnesses, a vehicle broke down around the Gloucester County garage on 17 and was blocking traffic to some extent.  A young man and woman stopped to help move the broken down vehicle off the highway and over to a safe area.  The vehicle that was broken down as identified by witnesses is a red car that appears to be a Honda Civic.

The vehicle that was broken down is pictured above.  As we understand what happened is that a man who helped move the vehicle to safety started running across the highway again and was struck by an oncoming pickup truck as it was explained to us.  Below is a slideshow of pictures.  This tide up traffic both North bound and South bound for hours making it very difficult for people to get to their destinations.

I was assaulted by two firefighters in front of a witness while getting these photos which is a Virginia violation, Virginia Code 18.2-57(a).  Two men from one of the firefighters crew came up to two of us who were standing off to the side of the road, in no way interfering with the duties of any of the emergency workers.  A first amendment violation, an attempted suppression of news, and a Federal Violation 42 USC 1983, Civil Rights violation against me.  They threatened to take my property, told me that they did not want me to take any pictures and told me that I had to go back home, wherever that was.  I feared violence from these two men.

Above is a picture of the two men in question before they approached me in front of a witness.  The picture is lousy and it is not easy to identify these two men.  I can not identify them and have no idea who they are.

This above picture is a better view of one of the two men who assaulted me just as he and his partner walked over to me.  As you can see from the picture, I was on the side of the road and no where near the accident and in no way could be interfering with them doing their job.  I was the only one told to leave the area.  The witness next to me was not asked to leave and was not harassed or assaulted.

This should not be viewed as a negative against the brave firefighters here in Gloucester County.  We have the utmost respect for the hard work these folks do.  It is a shame that two have stepped outside of the scope of their duties to try and bully and assault me for no apparent reason.

  We have a short video clip showing the accident scene.  We do not have the name of the victim and even if we did, could not publish it until released by the Sheriff's office.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

When Public Officials Use Private Emails

Gloucester, Virginia Officials Using Personal email Addresses from Chuck Thompson

Its been all over the news about Hilary Clinton and her use of private email addresses to conduct public business.  We have had it here as well about how local officials use private email addresses for public business and the types of problems that this can cause.

  So what we are going to show you is exactly how much of a problem it really is as we got our hands on a number of private email addresses from Public officials and how they use them for so called conducting public business.  You may want to read through these but please be advised, public officials won't like it.  There is some very embarrassing content in here.  But you go through it and decide for yourself.  

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fake Audio Submitted As Evidence

The above video was created from a file provided to the Gloucester, Virginia District Court back in 2010.  This is one of several audio files.  This part of the audio was never played in court and one has to wonder why.  Listen to it and tell me that it isn't fake.  Yet Animal Control deputy, Steve Baranek, testified, under oath, that all audio he created and entered into court evidence was true and accurate.  This is from court file number DW_C0153.  Are you to tell me that a dog answered the phone?

  He also states he was shot at.  Below again is a copy of the court report from that case.  At no point was this man ever shot at like he states in the audio above.  But again, he did state, under oath no less, that the audio was not altered and is a true copy of everything that did happen.  So people are supposed to believe Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control how?  He can't be lying that he was shot at, but testimony from both the Sheriff's office, and him, fail to show that even one gun shot, at any point, at anytime took place?  Did Steve for some reason just decide to suppress this fact?  Was he just being a nice guy?

  There are just way to many questions in the entire case that do not for one minute begin to make sense to any mind of reason.


The gloucester, va case that never was from Chuck Thompson

By all means, here is today's challenge.  Find where Steve states in court that he was shot at.  It's all from the same case.  Laura Crews has petitioned the court for meta data on the audio files used against her on this case and all I can imagine is that she will get it once hell freezes over for obvious reasons.  We already know from inside the Sheriff's office that the Sheriff's office has destroyed evidence in regards to this case and I challenge the Sheriff's office to prove they did not.  Nothing against the present administration as this was done under Gentry when he still held office.  As the word goes, Gentry, ordered it destroyed.

Who wants to have some real fun with all of this?  Start at page 15 and go through at least to page 23.  Its a fast read.  You won't understand what you are reading until I point out a very cleat fact here.  Animal Control at no point has or ever had the ability to serve a search warrant.  They are forbidden by Virginia Code from doing such.  With that knowledge, now go read the suggested pages above.  How did Judge Shaw allow this case to move forward?  He had a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  He didn't do that.  Why?  Read the Canons of Judicial Conduct For The State of Virginia and you will see that Judge Shaw did in fact have a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  But this is just my opinion here and I am not an attorney trying to practice law.  I am simply reporting on what I see and read.

  If you are not an attorney you are considered to stupid to understand the law yet ignorance of the law is no excuse.  All of that from the same group of people who administer justice?  Yup!

Canons of Judicial Conduct: Virginia Commonwealth from Chuck Thompson

Because I recommend you read the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia, I provide them for you right here.  I don't make this stuff up.  They do.  I just show you where it all is.  Read section 3:D.  Guess who the Judge is the case against Laura Crews today.  Judge Shaw.  Are we going to see a repeat of these same shenanigans?  Actually he is about to be asked to recuse himself from the case as these matters are about to be brought into evidence once again.    

Monday, March 23, 2015

Outrageous Court Order by Judge Sward of Portsmouth Virginia

What happens when you are acting pro se (your own defense) in a court in Virginia and you dare to question jurisdiction?  You get ordered to undergo a competency hearing.  Outrageous.  Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS!  In a Gloucester Virginia court case that in my own opinion is 100% predicated on fraud at every level this is just one more area where the courts are going beyond ridiculous.  It is my own opinion that the reason the courts are doing this is because of all the fraud involved in this case and the fact that they want to make sure that they do not get sued for all of their criminal activity.  Again, my opinion.  So where is the proof?  Let's take a look.

Challenge Jurisdiction? See What Happens Next from Chuck Thompson

What I need to point out in the above legal document in the above container is that at no time did the defendant ever communicate with the Commonwealth attorney's office that the defendant suffered PTSD.  That information is incorrect.  Also Commonwealth Assistant Attorney from Virginia Beach, Virginia states that defendant filed frivolous motions.  I have read those motions and did not find anything frivolous in them.  But I am not a BAR attorney.  Nor would I ever dream of wasting my time in becoming one.

  Here is what they do not want you to know however the defendant challenged jurisdiction.  All the courts throughout the US either have already or are presently having their jurisdiction challenged at every level by the National Liberty Alliance.  Please visit the link to see for yourself.  I would also recommend everyone join who is not an attorney or Judge to stop the criminal courts.  (Again, my opinion).  The NLA will not accept anyone who is a Judge or attorney into membership because they are part of the problem.

  If a revolution does occur in this country again, I believe it will be brought about by either the actions/inaction's of the courts in this country.  Not because of politics.  What I have been witnessing over the past few months is nothing short of showing me that the real criminals in this country are running the court systems and they do not dispense justice.  But let's look at some more facts.


Judge Sward's Outrageous Court Order, Portsmouth, VA Judge from Chuck Thompson

This order was created by Judge Sward of Portsmouth, Virginia and is not factual in my opinion as I was a witness to these proceedings and all the events that have occurred throughout the start of these actions.  I know every facet of the case as I have read every document and have done research in multiple areas in order to assist both the defendant and her husband has also been working on research to assist with her case.  We all have spent a vast amount of hours speaking on this subject and digging through everything we can find.

  Judge Sward stated that he did not see PTSD as an issue in the defendants case as any form of possible issue for her competency.  He denied her motions for dismissal but stated that defendant had some very valid points in those motions.  Witnesses to this case on this day can all testify that the defendant did not show a lack of competency for the defendant to continue to move forward.

    What is even worse is that Judge Sward heard no evidence other than from the prosecuting attorney, Wendy Alexander from Virginia Beach, that defendant filed frivolous motions that she later stated she refused to answer but that the motions contained valid points in regards to competency of the defendant.

  Wait, did anyone read that correctly?  Wendy Alexander stated she refused to answer the defendants motions as they were frivolous yet still stated that the motions had valid points.  Can anyone say corruption?  Judge Sward ignored these little facts.  The defendant had moved the court to have special prosecutor recused for a number of reasons that I consider very valid.  For one, in a previous hearing, Wendy Alexander pretty well called the defendant insane.  The defendant brought this up before judge Sward but he decided to give his interpretation on what Wendy Alexander meant by her statements without having been the judge in the hearing where Wendy Alexander made that specific statement.

  Now these actions are supposed to be in Circuit Court, but the court where Wendy Alexander made this statement was in a General District Court in front of Judge Shaw who had not yet been inaugurated into his position as a Circuit Court judge and there was not court reporter in the room and the defendant as well as several witnesses including myself were moved out of the actual Circuit Court courtroom where an actual court reporter was.  We were the only ones moved to the General District Court courtroom.  This was put together by Wendy Alexander with the aid of Holly Smith Gloucester, Virginia Commonwealth attorney.

  Now in my own view that was criminal intent with intent to commit fraud.  Wendy on January 27th, 2015 did not want a court reporter in the court.  Here is what happened in that courtroom before Judge Shaw that day.  First Wendy pretty well called the defendant insane and was arguing to put the defendant under evaluation then.  She then argued that she wanted to try the case right there on the spot.  Wait.  Who is the real insane person here?  Wendy first argued that the defendant was not competent to stand trial or defend herself and then Wendy wants to start a trial right on the spot.  Judge Shaw stopped her on the spot in that area.

  Now lets have some real fun.  The next action in this case is it moves to jury trial.  The defendant has never been identified by any of the judges in any of the 4 previous hearings, the defendant has never given a plea at anytime, the defendant has always contended that the court lacks jurisdiction and the courts continue to move forward anyway.  Wait, who are the criminals here?  The defendant has been accused of statutory violations that are so vague that even the supreme court has ruled that to be the case.  Plus, the courts have even stated that the statutes are not even violations under common law which Virginia Code, 1-200 states that all codes must be interpreted to the meaning of common law.  Plus this comes from West's annotated Virginia Code on the above so called statutory violations.  (Part of the research I helped with.)

  Even more hilarious but very sad and maddening is what Judge Sward also said during this hearing.  These motions have obviously been put together by someone with legal knowledge and skill but lacking a legal education.  I take that to mean that the defendant did not go to law school and is not a member of the BAR so that is an automatic disqualification and reason for a mental evaluation.  Again:  who are the criminals here?

  Oh, and have I mentioned that the Commonwealth has been withholding evidence from the defendant and stated in court that they would continue to withhold evidence from the defendant?  Not only that, but Judge Sward was asked about evidence provided to the court and if he saw the evidence.  He confessed he knew nothing about the evidence that was brought up in question and the two court clerks in the room looked at each other very surprised.  Why?  Was it because it was withheld from judge Sward?  He immediately ended the hearing after he admitted to not seeing the evidence or knowing anything about it.  I have to keep asking who the real criminals are here.

  Now Judge Sward came across as a nice guy, but he danced around the defendants questions and it was very clear to everyone who was there witnessing the hearing, that Judge Sward had no intention of allowing a fair hearing.  He even threatened the defendant with a revoking her bond and throwing her in jail if she did not consent to the psychiatric evaluation and that he would force compliance anyway.

  Let's also look at some other oddities of this particular hearing.  It was done as a stand alone hearing on a Thursday when all other Circuit Court business was conducted on Tuesday.  It was held in the basement in a hearing room.  No docket was posted and when we all asked for a copy of the docket in the Circuit Court clerks office, we were told that there was no Circuit Court cases being heard that day and there was no docket.  Others who were going to join us as witnesses were not able to find us in the hearing room as they were also told the same thing, there are no cases today.  We did get a copy of the days docket.  It states Circuit Court hearing to hear motions.  There was no court reporter at the front of the room.  No court reporter was sworn in after Judge Sward came into the room.  I believe I did recognize a court reporter in the back of the room who was only there witnessing the proceedings, and not taking any notes, so that the element could be covered.  But the element was not properly executed as required to be a court of record.  So that means this was once again a District Court proceeding done under the guise of a Circuit Court hearing and it was not public.

  Again, who are the criminals?   Oh this continues to get a lot more interesting but we are going to save that for other posts.       

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Mike Winebarger: Those People Comment

Mike Winebarger: "Those People" statement.  Please, by all means Mr Winebarger, who are "Those People"?  Are "Those People" the ones who pay taxes?  Are "Those People", the one's who elected you?  Are "Those People" somehow beneath you?  Who are "Those People"?  You were clearly pointing out away from you.

  Are "Those People" irritating to you?  Are "Those People" below your station?  What exactly was your point there Mr Winebarger?  Are "WE THE PEOPLE" offensive to your person now that you are a government persona?  We want to know.  Who are you referring to?


Monday, December 1, 2014

Standards of Conduct, Gloucester County Board of Supervisors

In the Agenda for Dec. 2, 2014 BOS meeting:
There is a proposal to add the following to the STANDARDS OF CONDUCT GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Citizens appearing before the Board will not be allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, engage in personal attacks, debate among the audience, use profanity, vulgar or abusive language, or jeer, cheer, or applaud, except during ceremonial matters. The Sergeant-at-Arms may be directed by the Board Chair to remove persons who violate these rules.
This suggests the People and Citizens in the meeting audience are not allowed to reasonably demonstrate consent or non-consent?  What is wrong with minor levels of applauding or even booing?  What is right with having law enforcement engaged as the Sergeant-at Arms?  There are way too many “will not be allowed” items contained in the proposed language.  Rules of order can be created without binding, gagging and intimidating the People and the Citizens.  The People’s and Citizens’ voices should not be limited, ignored nor silenced. 
Section 6-1 of York County’s Board of Supervisors Rules of Procedure is an example of less dictatorial language and reads as follows:
The efficient and dignified conduct of public business is the ultimate concern of the Board.  Accordingly, it is the policy of the Board that its meetings be conducted with the highest degree of order and decorum.  The Board's integrity and dignity will be established and maintained at all times during the conduct of public business, and the Board will permit no behavior which is not in keeping with this policy.  The soliciting of funds, the use of abusive or profane language, personal attacks on Board members, the failure to comply with time limits on speakers, or other forms of offensive conduct will not be tolerated.  The Chairman will maintain proper order at all times during all meetings of the Board and shall effect the removal from any meeting of any person guilty of offensive conduct if the offending party fails or refuses to cease such conduct.
In York County’s rule the necessity of good order is effectively communicated and control of order is placed with the Chairperson, not law enforcement.  On the other hand, York County’s rule also speaks of personal attacks on Board members.  Without a clear definition of personal attack; one would think a speaker can only compliment a Board member.  Each Board member is elected by the People and Citizens; therefore the People and Citizens should be allowed to publicly address issues pertaining to Board members as long as it is done in a respectful and orderly manner. 
Just my 2 cents,
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Gloucester, VA Judges Private Vehicle Chambers Pushed Off Til Later Date

The Gloucester Board of Supervisors have pushed off making a decision on the requested private vehicle chambers for the Gloucester, Virginia Judges who have expressed a concern for their own safety and want special privileges not afforded anyone else.

  Part of the reason why the decision was held off was that the requests coming from 3 judges are all different as to what they want and the estimate for a new private security area was done in a rush in hopes that the present board would push it through for the judges.  With 3 Board of Supervisors now leaving, they could have taken the heat for yet another decision where tax spending continued uncontrolled.  It will now come before the new board that is coming in to make the decision if they want to fund the private security for 2 of the 3 judges as one of the 3 is retiring at the end of this year.

  The issue we brought up on this site about the Judges needing the local law enforcement to hold their hands as they enter and leave was brought up and Sheriff Darrel Warren stated that the Sheriff's office has provided that service, however, there is a cost for that as well and someone would always have to be on hold to continue to do so.  The private chambers for the Judges vehicles still does not provide the Judges with safe security and they would still need a county sheriff's deputy from time to time should they feel threatened.  So what is the point?  What makes these people think they are above all the rest of us?

  Mr Chrisco seemed to be the only voice of reason on the Board that kept the decision from being pushed through tonight on this issue for providing funding without more information as to exactly what was being funded and how much.  If the judges really want to trap themselves like rats in a cage, we say let them.  However, let them pay for it.  Then they can build themselves a castle for all we care.  Do we really want to live in a Banana Republic?  Our Judges are telling us it's already here.  Are they part of the problem?
Enhanced by Zemanta