Gloucester County Board Of Supervisors Being Given A Chance

Gloucester County Board Of Supervisors Being Given A Chance

On Tuesday, May 15^th, 2010, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors each received an email from us regarding the information presently being presented on this site. We are hoping to give them a chance to properly investigate these issues as well as eventually address many other issues we have in this case and do what needs to be done. We expect to be updated with developments as they go along.

Here is an overview of this case as it presently stands. Both a victim and her husband suffered an illegal raid on their home and property. The husband was out of town at the time the raid took place. The raid was highly traumatic for this victim and her husband and they both suffer greatly from it to this day. The victim was highly abused the morning of this raid however evidence of such has been removed by the criminals in this case. The victim was illegally arrested, never read her Miranda rights, and was later forced to post an incredibly high bond to be released from jail. While in jail, the victim was horribly treated and denied her medications until the county nurse stepped in and demanded that the Sheriff's Office do something about her condition. She was hospitalized the next day.

This couple was later railroaded by the court system here in Gloucester. The victim was never allowed to speak on her own behalf and all witnesses were denied standing. The victim was forced into a guilty plea by extremely underhanded measures. The victim lost her security clearance for the government job she had held for over twenty four years and lost her job because of such. The victim is unable to get a job and has been denied jobs she was being offered based on negative information stemming directly from this case. All of this is well documented.

To date, the culprits in this case have gotten away with these acts. This is the first time anyone is seeing the evidence of this case. We have only presented a very small part of what we have. We also have pictures from the raid that were taken by Animal Control and let me say that some of them are despicable. We will be publishing those in the future. We have video footage and we have all the testimony from the actual kangaroo court. And we are still no where near done with this story.

We are dramatically slowing down our publishing of evidence in a goodwill gesture for the county Board of Supervisors to catch up and start acting on these findings. We expect to hear from them soon and will update this site with such.


Advertisement:  Are You Tired All The Time?  Check Out This Free Report.  Click Here.

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.

More From Lt Hawkins And Animal Control

More From Lt Hawkins And Animal Control

In this little clip we have Shaun Doyle talking to Steve Baranek commenting that, “Hawkins in there. Don't go in there”. Then both Shaun and Steve are laughing about whatever they are addressing. This was not in or around or even by a bathroom. What exactly was Lt Hawkins doing? This part of the conversation was in or around a barn.

This is off of Gloucester Animal Control file DW_C0153.  

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester Sheriff's Deputy Collude To Manufacture False Evidence.

Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester Sheriff's Deputy Collude To Manufacture False Evidence.

The above video is taken from Gloucester Animal Control file DW_C0153 and in the first part you hear Shaun Doyle talking to Steve Baraneck saying to Steve, “Your gonna love these pictures I'm gonna getcha”, Take everything straight outta the bedroom.” This part does not make sense except to say that it was accidentally cut in by Gloucester's very own mashup expert. The second part of the video however was a major mistake in the fact that this little section of the audio was never taken out.

We have Lt. Hawkins of the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office whispering to Steve Baranek, telling him, “Nothing, Nothing”, as an order to produce false evidence to say that there was no running water anywhere on this property. Yes I have the proof it was Lt Hawkins. This is what you call a smoking gun when it comes to evidence. Gloucester Animal Control and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office have colluded in a conspiracy to produce false evidence against the victim in this case. Any and all negative evidence supposedly found by the Gloucester Animal Control and the Gloucester Sheriff's Office in this case was all manufactured. None of it was true in the least bit. They illegally raided this home for two reasons as we have already reported.

So we are looking at a fake search warrant, collusion between Gloucester Animal Control and Gloucester County clerks to produce false documents. We are looking at a fake 911 call. We are looking at several pieces of evidence that collusion has taken place to produce false evidence and we also have a false arrest in this case. We also have fake recordings used as evidence. Does it get any worse? Well yes it does. We have a lot more yet to come.

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.

Fake Phone Call Message Embedded On Gloucester Evidence File

Fake Phone Call Message Embedded On Gloucester Evidence File

The above audio file clip was never supposed to be heard by you or me or anyone else except for Steve Baranek. It's a clip from Animal Control Audio file DW_C0153 and was a personal message sent to Steve Baranek by the person who creates these false audios for Gloucester County. How do I know it's fake? Listen to the audio again. When Steve answers the phone and says hello, the response is a well placed dog bark insertion. You do not hear anyone on the other end of the phone line and also there are some words cut out to make the conversation lean in a certain direction. Where Steve states he has been a real good dick today, the word dick is manipulated to fool the ear into hearing just that exact phrase.

The entire phone conversation is a fraud. It's not worth producing all the forensic evidence on this small clip as it already speaks for itself.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

Gloucester 911 Call Was Fraudulent - More Evidence

The above video contains audio extracted from Gloucester Animal Control audio file, DW_C0152 and this audio has numerous people discussing what Holli M Cohoon had said about the one call that came through her watch.  What these people are discussing does not match the 911 audio call we have already published.  Some of the information matches, other areas show information that has been both removed from the 911 call and is also evidence of Gloucester County officials conspiring to produce false evidence against the victim in this illegal raid.  We have a lot more to say about all this in a future article.

Gloucester, VA Links and News.  GVLN Website.

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.

Fraudulent Audio Recordings Produced By Gloucester County Authorities?

The above video clip was produced to show you how easy it is to produce and manufacture false evidence.  It is no longer our opinion that Gloucester Animal Control File DW_C0152 is a complete fraud, it's our contention of such.  In our last article we told you that we would be publishing the audio where Gloucester Authorities manufactured the wording for the fake search warrant, but that we would also include the forensic audio audit with such.  Well here it is.

Just listening to the first part of the audio clip you will hear a lot of issues.  The second part only contains 4 forensic audio audits.  More can be produced from this less than one minute clip.  Again, to be fair, I removed one little section of the clip where Gloucester Authorities use the victim's address.  Because this is a victim, we are protecting this person.  Again, I can produce these same results using the county's copy of the audio.  The next article will shed more light on the fake search warrant.

  It's sad.  I can continue to spend months and produce a huge amount of forensic evidence that file DW_C0152 if a complete fraud.  I already have over 40 hours into the audio now.

Gloucester Illegal Search Warrant? Last Words, Maybe

For the most part, we consider the argument about the search warrant over.  In our opinion, the search warrant is in fact fraudulent at every level and at every angle of argument.  The reason we bring it up yet again is for two reasons.  One, there is still another area where the search warrant was not valid, and two, is because this is where the next part of our story begins.  So we are going to detail one from above and show yet another angle where the search warrant was never valid.  If you have not been following this story, you need to start from the beginning to play catch up.  There are two affiant's to this search warrant which is perfectly legal.  The original affiant's identity does not have to be legally disclosed to the defendant.  No issues here at this time.  We have already argued that the original affiant was not a trustworthy affiant.  What we have not argued, because we did not have the information until now is that the original affiant's affidavit could have only given both Animal Control and The Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, access to the inside of the house and no outside areas whatsoever if the original affiant was even considered reliable.

  Remember, we already stated that the defendant/occupant - victim, never received a copy of the affidavit attachment that was required by law.  What is also interesting is that the victim's attorney did get a copy of the affidavit but refused to show it to the defendant/occupant - victim, the attorney being, Michael T Soberick.  The victim has just seen it for the first time ever, today.  The search warrant was written out as follows, areas to be searched - a single family dwelling, it's curtilage and environs.  The so called search warrant was written way to broadly to be valid based on the original affiant's complaint.  Funny thing is, Mike Soberick saw this and both the victim and husband argued that the search warrant was not valid with him on other areas, never even knowing about this area.  I have yet to see any part of this search warrant where anyone can state it is valid and actually mean it.

Due to the nature of the confidential information on the affidavit, we are not posting it.  It will be made available only to the following entities.
1.)  Law enforcement - No Conditions or exclusions of facts
2.)  News Agencies - Conditions that certain information be kept confidential.  Details upon request.

  An area we find very interesting is that it was Judge Jeffrey W Shaw who heard this case.  The Honorable Judge Shaw and Michael T Soberick, Esq. were once law partners.  Hmm!  So what am I getting at?  It's just an observation............................Maybe.

Now could it be that the reason why the search warrant was written much broader than it should have been was because of some kind of vendetta?  A case can be made for that.  The real reason though exists in the DW_C0152 audio file.  The file we have shown in our forensic audits to not be valid in our professional opinion.  Can you guess yet what our next story is going to cover?  DW_C0152 audio with an included forensic audit report showing where the concept for how the search warrant had to be written came into play and the forensic report showing how the audio was doctored in this area.  It's really pretty hilarious when you hear the forensic audio.  You get to hear how the organic background changes in the middle of the conversation.  It's not possible for that to happen unless of course you alter the recording.

  Did we mention the go to person yet who creates these audios for Gloucester County?

Wait;  The legal stuff.  Our lawyers wanted us to mention that we are not lawyers.  So here it is.  We are not lawyers.  Now our lawyers are happy.

Gloucester County Case Update - Sgt Paul Emanuele

To date we have two highly questionable audio files provided by the county and used in a Gloucester County Court.  We have a 911 Dispatcher's testimony that does not match up to the 911 call.  We have an Animal Control officer who has testified that his audio recording, DW_C0152 is a true and accurate account of the days events yet as we continue to look real close at it, we just do not see how that could begin to be possible.  We have only grazed the evidence of Deputy Sheriff Sgt Paul Emanuele and this is where we are going to pick up today.

  If you have been following this story, below is a four minute and thirty second audio, made by Steve Baranek of Animal Control.  On the audio you hear Steve say that Paul Emanuele has just been made Sergeant.  What it takes to make it to that rank is very tough and you have to be a real sharp individual.  You not only have to qualify for the position, you also have to take and pass tests for the position.  It's not something that's just handed to someone.  So it would only be fair to give credit where credit is due.  We say that it is a very fair evaluation that Sgt Paul Emanuele is a very sharp person.

So let's again revisit his incident report for the events of May 4th, 2010 along with his involvement.

Now let's look at Sgt Paul Emanuele's statement above.  He was at the victim's address assisting numerous Animal Control Officers with a search warrant.  Let me repeat this.  Sgt Paul Emanuele was assisting Animal Control with a search warrant.  Okay.  I'll buy that for now.  Keep in mind, Sgt Paul Emanuele is a very sharp guy.

Now right above is Virginia law showing who has the power to do what.  Only a Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff or a Police Officer has the power to conduct the search.  Not Animal Control.  Looking above again at Sgt Paul Emanuele's own report, he was dispatched to this location and did not have previous orders to be there to serve a search warrant.  His own statement is that he was there to assist Animal Control, not head the search according to Virginia Law.  Is Gloucester County really going to try and argue that Sgt Emanuele made a mistake on his report?  Remember, this guy just made Sargent so you know he is very sharp. We believe this is Proof once again that there was no search warrant in place at the time both Animal Control Officers were there and the Gloucester County Sheriff's office was there.  (We now know by what Gloucester County sent us, there was no valid search warrant at that time).

  In our opinion, Sgt Paul Emanuele got caught up and sent into the middle of something very nasty.  He was doing the best he could in trying to produce something that matched the official story that the powers in Gloucester wanted told, and at the same time keep himself out of the middle of it all.  He has had to walk a very thin tight rope.  You have to feel sorry for this guy.