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

How To Protect Yourself From Animal Control And The Tricks That They Use

We have been investigating Animal Control for several years now and we have interviewed numerous people to compile a list of interesting facts that we are going to share.  It would seem that Animal Control in many areas throughout the nation is out of control.  Citizen rights are being violated in the name of so called animal protection.  Some cases are fully justified while there is growing evidence that there are a lot that are not in the least bit justified and are nothing more than true violations of citizen rights.  So we are publishing this article to level the playing field so that those of you animal lovers never become a victim of unjustified violations of your rights.

English: Olympus Digital Voice Recorder (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  One of the issues that has come up to our attention time and time again is that Animal Control Officers carry pocket digital voice recorders.  They conceal these in their pockets and when they go onto a property, they record everything that goes on.  Not a bad thing in itself, however, they never tell you that they have one of these on them and they do not tell you that you are being recorded.  These recordings sometimes end up in court and are used against you.  What has been reported to us numerous times is that the recordings have been altered from what was really said.  In the event you think this is nothing but hot air, we are going to give you a link to one of our other sites where we obtained altered animal control voice recordings.
https://sites.google.com/site/gloucestervanews/  These recordings were used against a person in a court of law.  They were altered from every test we could conduct on the recordings.

  If animal control shows up on your property, one of the first things to ask them is, "Do you have a voice recorder on you"?  Are you recording this conversation?  Tell them that you do not consent to being recorded.  If it's your property, even if you are only renting, you have a right not to consent to being recorded.  Each question they ask you, start out your answer with, "I do not consent to being recorded".  Then answer their question.

  What we highly recommend is keeping a camera around or close by and should animal control show up on your property, immediately start video recording them.  You want your own records in the event they take you to court.  As long as they are on your property, you have the right to video record them.  If they get out of line then upload the video to every site you can think of such as You Tube.  Here is a list of 31 sites beyond You Tube for posting that video.  
http://chaos-laboratory.com/2007/08/30/top-31-free-alternatives-to-youtube-video-hosting-sites/  It's called leveling the playing field.

  Another tactic that Animal Control and some police and or sheriff's deputies use is intimidation tactics to get you to violate your own rights.  They use the power of their badge and gun to just walk right into your home, garage, storage area or any other personal area.  If you try and challenge them, some will tell you that they have the right to do this.  After all they are wearing a badge and have a big scary gun on them.  Don't be fooled.  They do not have the right to enter your private area without a valid search warrant.  Make them get one if it's that important.

  We have seen a sheriff's deputy barge right into a private home because of a noise complaint.  This deputy was nasty as all get out and in complete violation of the renters rights.  We have interviewed several different families that have had Animal Control barge right into the house of the owners and take away their pets.  There was nothing wrong with the pets.  The owner in one case had made a complaint about a pesky raccoon in the area.

  Just because someone is wearing a badge and carrying a gun does not give them the right to violate your private home.  In the event that this does happen to you, we highly recommend that you locate your local state police telephone number and put it into your contacts on your phone.  You will want to tell the local animal control officer that he or she is violating your rights and that they must leave or you are going to call the state police and file charges against them.  You can also do this against your local police or sheriff's deputies if your rights are being violated.

  Even if you are just being served papers, video tape everything as we have heard of numerous cases where the police have mis stated facts in order to mis lead the ones being served.  Check over the papers you have been served with a fine tooth comb and question everything.  Look up the laws the papers say you have violated that are listed on the warrants and see if you are actually in violation of those laws or if you are just being hoodwinked.  Do not be intimidated by any of these people.  Most of our public servants are not bad people and are just doing their jobs so please keep this in mind.  This information is just to cover areas for when people are having their rights violated and this issue is growing.  If you are dealing with an honest person, they should not have any problems with you recording them to protect yourself.

  And that is the name of this game.  Self protection.  Because if you are targeted for whatever reason, you are going to need proof of the violations.  The only way to stop these violations is to level the playing field.  Police use video camera's in their patrol cars, you can use your own as well.  Do not ever let any officer enter your private property without a search warrant.  It's a violation of your rights.  If they enter and you have told them to leave and they do not leave, call your local state police and file charges against that person.

  Do not be intimidated into not filing charges.  File them.  Now there are cases where animal control do have the right to enter onto private property and inspect animals without any kind of search warrant.  If you are running a business with any kind of animals on your property, then you must allow inspections during normal business hours.  You still have the right to video record animal control during the inspections, but you do need to allow the inspections.  Inspections only apply to the areas where animals are kept.  Not into other areas of your business or home.  Please check your local and state laws for more information.

Disclaimer:  We are not attorney's and this article does not represent legal advice.  Only an attorney can advice you on your legal rights.

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

• Demand Justice for Innocent Dog Killed by Animal Control Officer
• When Police or Animal Control Come Knocking On Your Door; What Every Dog Owner Needs to Know
• Update on the situation in Sikeston
• Former puppy mill owner to pay thousands in restitution
• UPDATE: Animal Control Officer Killed In Galt; Suspect In Standoff

Holli M Cohoon Now Harassing Victim?

Is Holli M Cohoon now harassing the victim she gave highly questionable testimony against?  

Let's go back to the beginning on this.  Holli M Cohoon was once a 911 operator for the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office.  We have been reporting for some time now on this case and we have shown that at the very least, Holli has lied in court.  Now all of a sudden from out of nowhere, the victim gets this emergency protective order a few days after we released a story on Holli and her Sunrise Donut shop.

  The victim in this case was initially raided by the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office, under Sheriff Steve Gentry, and Gloucester, VA Animal control without a search warrant.  A search warrant was not issued to this victim until later in the day after she was released from jail.  This victim had no idea was she was even taken to jail.

Click Image to enlarge.  Names and personal 
information removed for privacy.

We have shown that the search warrant that was given to the victim after being released from jail was not valid in any area of law.  We showed also that this victim had all kinds of false evidence used against her by Gloucester, VA Animal Control and the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office.  We show that Holli's testimony was no where near the other false evidence given by others presenting further false evidence.
We have shown how the evidence is false.

  The victim in this case has been working on a lawsuit against Holli M Cohoon for some time now and it is opinion that Holli may have gotten wind of a pending lawsuit and is using this as a way to throw off the case.  So is this a harassment attempt by Holli?

 When putting together a lawsuit, you get detailed information on what the other party owns in order to determine if the lawsuit can be justified.

Now here is some other information we find very interesting.  We went over the above document with a fine tooth comb and see that Gloucester County court officials followed everything to the letter of the law.  Now how is it they can do this now but were unable to do this in the past?  Every area properly signed, every aspect properly dated and executed.  Yet on the search warrant given after the raid on the victim, nothing was done properly.  Go back into our archives and see for yourself.  We posted that evidence.  Or Click Here to see all the evidence from this case.

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.

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.