Gloucester County
Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?
Above is a jpg image of a
search warrant issued here in Gloucester County. This is the search
warrant that has been in discussion in earlier parts of this overall
story. On the surface, it may look valid, but when you start really
studying all it's components and asking a lot of questions, you start
to realize that there is something very wrong here. At least it is
our opinion that something horribly wrong exists.
Let's start breaking this
document down and asking questions shall we? If you look at the
bottom of this document, you will see that it is signed by one Gloria
Owens who is a Gloucester County court clerk. She signed this
document and marked the box Judge. Gloria Owens is not a judge. She
is not a Magistrate. She is a clerk. Okay, in fairness, she has the
right to sign this document and mark it for a judge if she was in
contact with a judge and was signing it in his place, which would
require her to mark it as such but was never done. See VA Code Ann
19.2-56 below. Information we have obtained states that Gloria Owens
is the usual go to person in the county whenever a fast form is
needed for whatever reason. Now we have no way to confirm this, it's
what has been told to us from inside the Sheriff's office.
Now let's look at the date
and time this was executed. Well all we have here is a date, no
time. A time stamp is required by law to be on this document,
however, it will not invalidate evidence and or property seized
during the search as long as Gloucester County can show the time that
this document was created. The search took place on May 4th,
2010. One day after this document was “supposedly” created. We
strongly emphasis supposedly. Yet this document does not contain a
valid file number. If it was created one day in advance of a search,
this document should have a valid file number. It's rather shoddy
and shady that this document does not contain a file number seeing as
Gloucester had 24 hours advanced preparations.
Now let's look at the
markings or numbers that are placed in the file number box. 10.45.
Could this possibly be a date? 2010, 4
th day of May?
This search as already stated took place on May 4
th, 2010.
So it is very feasible that 10.45 means just that. Now opinion is
that the real date that this document was in fact created is May 4
th,
2010 and after the search began. Or in other words, while an illegal
raid was being conducted against those this search warrant has been
issued. This is why I have asked for the meta data files on the
creation of this document. You can not alter the meta data on a
computer without creating a major boot record of such. Again, more
reason why Gloucester County really wants to ignore my requests for
information? It's better to take a hit for non compliance than to
offer up evidence that may just incriminate a number of people? The
opinion is that everything had to be created after the illegal raid
began to cover the tracks of those guilty parties to the raid.
![]()
Ah, and I am just warming
up here to. Now let's look at the affiant section of the search
warrant. The signature on here to the best of our understanding is
Steve Baranek of Animal Control. He is the second of two affiant's.
His affidavit is in place of the first affidavit where by law, the
original affiant does not have to be disclosed to the defendant,
however, burden of proof as to why the original affiant is hidden is
on Gloucester County. There must be a certain amount of fear of
retribution from the defendant against the original affiant in order
to hide said evidence.
Now here is what I am not
supposed to know. The original affiant was under the employ of
Peninsula Heating and Air,or PHA at the time. Evidence produced by
this PHA employee that was supposedly used to create this search
warrant comes into very deep questioning. I have asked for all
evidence here and have not received it. It is believed that the PHA
employee, through illegally trespassing into areas of a house where
he was assigned to work, took photographs on what he considered to be
either questionable and or possibly illegal evidence of animal
neglect.
Now when it comes to
accepting evidence and compiling an affidavit for the purposes of
issuing a search warrant, the affiant must be deemed reliable. If
the PHA employee was criminally trespassing into areas of a house he
had no right to access, can his testament be considered reliable?
Gaining evidence via committing an illegal act does not prove
reliability.
That would invalidate the
PHA employee affidavit. Now what about Steve Baranek's affidavit?
Well that was created to protect the original affiant. So now that
would make Steve Baranek's affidavit null and void making the search
warrant null and void. Problem is, the search took place. These are
not the only areas in question. There isn't an area on this search
warrant I can't question and show some serious flaws in. I mean this
thing is loaded with problems in my opinion. However, I am not going
to give everything I know away right now as I am still waiting on
evidence from Gloucester County and know that there are many people
in the county who are in fact reading this. Plus inside information
from the Sheriff's deputy says that all the evidence of this case
have been destroyed so it's going to be hard for Gloucester County to
produce what we are looking for. This he was told by Sheriff Gentry.
After ample time, I'm still going to pick this document clean and
show even worse issues than I have put up yet.
So far we are looking at a
very sloppy search warrant that is at the very least, highly
questionable and County officials that are ignoring requests for
information to clarify areas of this document. How much worse can it
get? You have no idea.
At this point, if I have
your attention, I would strongly suggest that you start following all
the updates on this site as this does not even begin to scratch the
surface of everything coming. I have surprises everywhere and on
every story coming up that are more shocking than the last.
