A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

When my son Vincent told me he wanted to purpose to his girlfriend Cheyenne two June 26th’s ago, I already knew what I wanted to share with her. Now honestly because my ex-wife and I did not end on good terms I almost felt embarrassed about what I am going to share with you. What my original plan was that I tell Cheyenne this “Blessing” and she could tell anyone she wanted but my son Vincent. Now if I am right when ever Cheyenne shared what I told her there might be some tears and my son would think he should be upset with me. Any how I hope you all like what I am about to share. This is truly how I felt about my ex-wife Julie D. Mendoza and it is even hard to share I am sorry but leaving was the right thing for her to do. Having said that my son’s Manuel & Vincent know if their mom was ever in trouble I should be their first phone call. Cheyenne ask your Mother in-law to show you our wedding picture where we are cutting the cake and here is why.

                             A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

Cheyenne on my wedding day I married the most beautiful bride in the world. And some time in to our marriage every time Julie came home from work no matter a mess I would tell her; she was the most beautiful woman in the world. The best part about that Cheyenne was I truly meant it each and every time I told her.

Now the moment Vincent told me he want to purpose to you I knew he would carry our family tradition on, because on his wedding day he would be marring his most beautiful bride in the world  YOU. Cheyenne sometime during your marriage my son will be looking at you and loving you through his eyes. You might have some grand baby poop on you (maybe TWO) your hair might be a mess and you will know what Cheyenne? You will know that he is looking at his most beautiful woman in the world and that is my blessing to you.

May this be the family tradition we pass on to our children; to always love with all our heart and to promise we never stop trying no matter what God puts in our path.

Now Cheyenne I left one little part out, be careful how you share this just in case there is ever a second Mrs. Mendoza!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

When my son Vincent told me he wanted to purpose to his girlfriend Cheyenne two June 26th’s ago, I already knew what I wanted to share with her. Now honestly because my ex-wife and I did not end on good terms I almost felt embarrassed about what I am going to share with you. What my original plan was that I tell Cheyenne this “Blessing” and she could tell anyone she wanted but my son Vincent. Now if I am right when ever Cheyenne shared what I told her there might be some tears and my son would think he should be upset with me. Any how I hope you all like what I am about to share. This is truly how I felt about my ex wife Julie D. Mendoza and it is even hard to share I am sorry but leaving was the right thing for her to do. Having said that my son’s Manuel & Vincent know if their mom was ever in trouble I should be their first phone call. Cheyenne ask your Mother in-law to show you our wedding picture where we are cutting the cake and here is why.

                             A Daughter-in-Law’s Blessing

Cheyenne on my wedding day I married the most beautiful bride in the world. And some time in to our marriage every time Julie came home from work no matter a mess I would tell her; she was the most beautiful woman in the world. The best part about that Cheyenne was I truly meant it each and every time I told her.

Now the moment Vincent told me he want to purpose to you I knew he would carry our family tradition on, because on his wedding day he would be marring his most beautiful bride in the world  YOU. Cheyenne sometime during your marriage my son will be looking at you and loving you through his eyes. You might have some grandbaby poop on you (maybe TWO) your hair might be a mess and you will know what Cheyenne? You will know that he is looking at his most beautiful woman in the world and that is my blessing to you.

May this be the family tradition we pass on to our children; to always love with all our heart and to promise we never stop trying no matter what God puts in our path.

Now Cheyenne I left one little part out, be careful how you share this just in case there is ever a second Mrs. Mendoza!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

20YRS. 1988-2007, 20YRS 1989-2008 & 1988-2011 24 YEARS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY’S ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS v. ACTUAL (SBCERS) PENSION FUND PERFORMANCE 1988-2007

Take a look at the Pension Growth graph below and how it represents the 8.16% Actuarial Rate nice and smooth. The reason I like the graph so much is because it is simple. It is just a smooth growth that does not care about assumption or Inflation factors. It all actuality that 8.16% is the all-inclusive number, so why are the pension audits and the explanations that people give about them always trying to lose us with additional numbers and factors?

Fully Funded Pension Fundgraph

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“SBCERS History of Economic Assumptions” VS. Actual Pension Fund Performance; covering 20 years 1988 through 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the 20 Net Return on Assets picture above to the right that shows an annual 10.10% return on investments. If that data was added to the graph on the left the line representing 10.10%  it would show that 600 million dollars more was earned for the pension than the 8.16%. Then if you add some more money because of the unfunded future pension obligations (UAAL) like I did the pension should have earned a billion dollars more than the 8.16% would have. I have made my own work sheet showing the differences between Santa Barbara County’s Pension Assumptions and the SBCERS Pensions Actual Performances.


I have two other work sheets showing assumptions v. actual earned return average. 1989-2008 9.6% represents the 20 YEAR NET RETURN ON ASSETS and 1988-2011 8.5% represents 24 YEARS of NET RETURN ON ASSETS both sheets can be found further down this posting.

20 YEARS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY’S ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

v. ACTUAL (SBCERS) PENSION FUND PERFORMANCE 1988-2007

 

Valuation Date

(A) Earnings Rate Assumption

(B) CPI Inflation Assumption

 (C )Rate Of Return Assumption 

(D)UAAL

(unfunded actuarial accrued liability)

12/31/88

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

3.18%

12/31/90

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

4.61%

12/31/92

8.25%

5.00%

3.25%

4.72%

12/31/94

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.06%

12/31/95

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

8.12%

12/31/96

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

5.20%

12/31/97

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.08%

12/31/98

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

1.03%

12/31/99

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

-0.09%

12/31/00

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

0.08%

12/31/02

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

2.29%

6/30/03

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

3.65%

6/30/04

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

6.63%

6/30/05

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

8.40%

6/30/06

8.00%

4.00%

4.00%

9.29%

6/30/07

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

11.74%

Assumptions Averaged over 20 Years

 

8.15% AVG(A)

4.75%AVG.(B)

3.40%AVG.(C)

A-B=C

4.02%AVG.(D)

Actual Pension Performance Out Earns 20 Year Assumption Average By More Than One Billion Dollars. See examples under chart

Actual 20 Year (E) Average Return on Assets 10.10%

20% Greater Than Assumption

Actual 20 Year (F)

CPI Index Averaged

3.10%

35%

Lower Than Assumption

 

(G)Real Rate of Return Earned

7.00%

51.5% Greater

Than Assumption

E-F = G

(H)  UAAL Average Monthly Cost

7 Million a Year

 580,000.00 (F)

A Month Deposit/Payment

 

1-Using assumption factor; $270,540,000 X 8.15% (A) X 20 years = 1.34 billion dollars.

2- Using Actual Performance Factor; $270,540,000 X 10.10% (E.) X 20 years = $1.94 billion dollars,

3-Same as example 2 plus a monthly deposit; Again a starting value of $270,540,000 but adding a monthly (H) deposit of 580,000 X 10.10% (E) X 20 years = $2.37 billion dollars.

America how are our pensions earning more than they wanted (8.16%), contributing more than the normal rate( 4.02%) of County’s yearly payroll for the entire 20 year period 1988-2007 and claim to have a Billion dollar unfunded deficit? I have just done the math that shows a Billion dollar surplus would have been earned, WAKE UP AMERICA!


S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

The other work sheets  9.6% represents the 20 YEAR NET RETURN ON ASSETS 1989-2008 

 

20 YEARS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY’S ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

 

v. ACTUAL (SBCERS) PENSION FUND PERFORMANCE 1989-2008

 

 

 

Valuation Date

(A) Earnings Rate Assumption

(B) CPI Inflation Assumption

 (C )Rate Of Return Assumption 

(D)UAAL

(unfunded actuarial accrued liability)

12/31/89

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

3.18%

12/31/90

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

4.61%

12/31/92

8.25%

5.00%

3.25%

4.72%

12/31/94

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.06%

12/31/95

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

8.12%

12/31/96

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

5.20%

12/31/97

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.08%

12/31/98

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

1.03%

12/31/99

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

-0.09%

12/31/00

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

0.08%

12/31/02

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

2.29%

6/30/03

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

3.65%

6/30/04

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

6.63%

6/30/05

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

8.40%

6/30/06

8.00%

4.00%

4.00%

9.29%

6/30/07

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

11.74%

6/30/08

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

9.10%

Assumptions Averaged over 20 Years

 

8.12% AVG(A)

4.65%AVG.(B)

3.47%AVG.(C)

A-B=C

4.31%AVG.(D)

Actual Pension Performance Out Earns 20 Year Assumption Average By More Than 900 Million Dollars. See examples under chart

Actual 20 Year (E) Average Return on Assets 9.60%

15% Greater Than Assumption

Actual 20 Year (F)

CPI Index Averaged

3.10%

33%

Lower Than Assumption

 

(G)Real Rate of Return Earned

6.50%

46% Greater

Than Assumption

E-F = G

(H)  UAAL Average Monthly Cost

8 Million a Year

 666,000.00 (F)

A Month Deposit/Payment

 

1-Using assumption factor; $270,540,000 X 8.12% (A) X 20 years = 1.3 billion dollars.

2- Using Actual Performance Factor; $270,540,000 X 9.60% (E.) X 20 years = $1.765 billion dollars,

3-Same as example 2 plus a monthly deposit; Again a starting value of $270,540,000 but adding a monthly (H) deposit of 666,000 X 9.60% (E) X 20 years = $2.23 billion dollars.

 

 

1988-2011 8.5% represents 24 YEARS of NET RETURN ON ASSETS 

SBCERS 24 YEARS of ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

v. ACTUAL PENSION FUND PERFORMANCE 1988-2011

Valuation Date

(A) Earnings Rate Assumption

(B) CPI Inflation Assumption

 (C )Rate Of Return Assumption 

(D)UAAL

(unfunded actuarial accrued liability)

12/31/88

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

3.18%

12/31/90

8.50%

5.50%

3.00%

3.18%

12/31/92

8.25%

5.00%

3.25%

4.72%

12/31/94

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.06%

12/31/95

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

8.12%

12/31/96

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

5.20%

12/31/97

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

6.08%

12/31/98

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

1.03%

12/31/99

8.00%

4.75%

3.25%

-0.09%

12/31/00

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

0.08%

12/31/02

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

2.29%

06/30/03

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

3.65%

06/30/04

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

6.63%

06/30/05

8.00%

4.50%

3.50%

8.40%

06/30/06

8.00%

4.00%

4.00%

9.29%

06/30/07

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

11.74%

06/30/08

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

9.10%

06/30/09

8.16%

3.50%

4.66%

14.67%

06/30/10

7.75%

3.25%

4.50%

16.00%

06/30/11

7.75%

3.25%

4.50%

16.00%

 

 

 

 

 

Assumptions Averaged over 24 Years

 

8.10% AVG(A)

4.50%AVG.(B)

3.60%AVG.(C)

A-B=C

6.02%AVG.(D)

Actual Pension Performance Out Earns 24 Year Assumption Average By More Than One Billion Dollars. See examples under chart

Actual 24 Year (E) Average Return on Assets 8.50%

5% Greater Than Assumption

Actual 24 Year (F)

CPI Index Averaged

2.90%

35%

Lower Than Assumption

 

(G)Real Rate of Return Earned

5.60%

45% Greater

Than Assumption

E-F = G

(H)  UAAL Average Monthly Cost

13 Million a Year

 1,008,000. (F)

A Month Deposit/Payment

 

1-Using Assumption Factor; $270,540,000 X 8.10% (A) X 24 years = $ 1.82 Billion dollars.

2- Using Actual Performance Factor; $270,540,000 X 8.50% (E.) X 24 years = $1.99 Billion dollars,

3-Same as example 2 plus a monthly deposit; Again a starting value of $270,540,000 but adding a monthly (F) deposit of 1,008,000 X 8.50% (E) X 24 years = $2.91 Billion dollars.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What are the Compensating Factors that Make it Impossible for the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems Pension (S.B.C.E.R.S.) to be Anything but Fully Funded?

Attachments

1-Net Return on Assets VS. Increase in Consumer Price Index. 1990-2009

2009 20 history real net return on assets 7.6

2-SBCERS Pension History of Economic Assumptions 1981-2009

20101004-002b-BOR-EconomicAssumptionsHistory 20 years(3)(2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3- Santa Barbara County Employer-Employee History of Cost 12/31/86-06/30/2009

20101004-002b-BOR-EconomicAssumptionsHistory 20 years(3)(2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4- Net Return on Assets VS. Increase in Consumer Price Index. 1988-2007

“SBCERS History of Economic Assumptions” VS. Actual Pension Fund Performance; covering 20 years 1988 through 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Cathy & Gina,

I thought I would start by sharing with you both why I have always felt that mathematically it was impossible for Santa Barbara County’s pension to be in such dire straights. Honestly once I got a handle on our situation I knew I could apply the same logic to many of the other County pensions in California.

 

Now I write a blog that stems from my divorce and the ton of bad things that happen to me during that whole process. I started writing about my situation but honestly nobody cared about another bad divorce. At this time 2008/09 the media was filled with stories about how our public pensions suffered huge losses in 2008 which of course were later exceeded in 2009 in some cases by nearly 150%. In Santa Barbara County the pensions two-year losses exceeded 25% of its total 2007 value, thus creating the alleged future underfunded obligation crisis’s we currently face.

 

To me it seemed like everything was being blamed on Wall Street yet no specific venue was ever actually given. So I looked into the numbers here in Santa Barbara and I knew things just didn’t add up. After reviewing just these 4 attachments I was positive there was something a-rye here, but I admit wondering if I had missed something.

 

Now the first attachment shows that the 20 year average net return (actual performance) on assets ending June 2009 was 7.6% with a CPI average of only 2.8%. This of course reflects the pensions losses in 2008 of 7.2% and the 19.2% lose of 09. But was there any compensating factors and would they help or hurt the situation? How come no one else was talking about compensating factors and how they might affect the alleged pension deficit like me?

 

 

The phrase compensating factors for me has a common sense meaning so why people try to make it more complicated than that is beyond me. For example even though the data in attachment 1 supports that Santa Barbara County should have a pension deficit in 2009. That all changes when we input the positive compensating factors found in attachments 2&3? In fact after you apply these positive factors to the whole situation it actually becomes mathematically impossible for the pension to have any kind of deficit.

 

The two biggest compensating factors to consider are the actual CPI index factor average of 3.0% in attachment 1 vs. the assumption average of 4.75% used in attachment 2. If you look closer at the SBCERS Pension History of Economic Assumptions you can see the relationship that the CPI index has to the pensions real net return. If the CPI assumption was to low then the real rate of return is reduced by the difference. However if the CPI assumption was higher than the actual number the real rate of return should increase by the difference.

 

So in our case the 20 year CPI assumption averaged 4.75% and the actual 20 year average index came in at 3.0%. In other words we have a positive compensating factor of 1.75% which more than makes up for the under performing 20 net return on assets of 7.6% by 1.15%.

 

But wait a minute attachment 3 column 4 UAAL rate shows that since 1988 Santa Barbara County has also been over contributing to the pension because of the alleged unfunded future obligation. So we now have another positive compensating factor that eliminates the alleged damage caused by the under performing (7.6%) pension fund.

 

Finally we have to look at attachment 4 and what it represents. This document shows that the pension up till June 2007 had actually earned a 10.1% for 20 years easily exceeding the desired 8.15%. Yet attachment 3 columns 4 UAAL still shows that the county was over contributing during the entire 20 year period represented in this document. So the math should look something like this: 20 years x 10.1% (not 7.6% or even 8.15%) add the positive impact from the lower than assumed CPI index (1.75%) plus the additional contributions found under the UAAL column and I think you to will agree with me that it is mathematically impossible for the SBCERS pension to be anything but fully funded with a rather healthy reserve.

 

Now what happens if I do the math, well in these 2 examples there is over 600 million dollars difference between the 2. That does not factor in the 20 years of additional contributions made by Santa Barbara County because of the alleged deficit represented in attachment 3 column 4 under UAAL.

 

Example 1 will use the assumption factors;

Let’s use a starting amount of $270,540.000.dollars. After 20 years of earning an average net return of 8.15% compounded semiannually the pension funds  final balance on June 2007 should be 1,336,873,000.

 

Example 2 actual fund performance factors;

Again we start with a fund balance of $270,540,000, and after 20 years of earning 10.10% return on assets compounded semiannually. The pension’s final balance June 2007 would be an amazing 600 million more than what would have been earned at the desired rate of 8.15%, coming in at 1,941,223,000.dollars.

 

Ladies I hope I did not take the long road with my explanation; truth is this is not even the tip of the ice berg. But let me leave you with this, if the difference between the assumption and actual CPI index was as high as 1.75% in Santa Barbara, it makes sense the other pensions over shot their CPI assumption as well. In fact since 2010 most pensions have tried to convince the public they have actually lowered their assumptions for asset returns. But actually all they have really done is lower their CPI assumption from the 4% area down to the 3% area, where is all the money?

 

 

FYI CPI data for your review.

The table below shows the average inflation over various periods, ending June 30, 2011: Periods Ending June 2011 U. S. City Average Annual Increase in CPI-U
Last five (5) years 2.15%
Last ten (10) years 2.40%
Last fifteen (15) years 2.46%
Last twenty (20) years 2.57%
Last twenty-five (25) years 2.94%
Last thirty (30) years 3.09%
Since 1913 (first available year) 3.23%

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Authoritarianism and Perjury is running Rampant by Santa Maria Superior Court Judges, Police and Santa Barbara County’s District Attorneys Office, IT MUST BE STOPPED!

Definition of Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a social system based on submission to authority. Authoritarian governments typically concentrate all power in a leader or leaders, with no accountability or limits on power. Leadership is usually self-appointed, without input from the population or elections. Authoritarian rule is often characterized by repressive regimes, the exclusion of any political challengers, rigged elections, and the unregulated and unaccountable use of power. There are no guarantees of civil liberties or tolerance for political opposition. Its most extreme form is totalitarianism, in which the government maintains authority over all aspects of public and private life. Authoritarianism is at odds with democracy and individualism. The change of authoritarian rule to democracy is referred to as democratization.

 

I recently received this email from a concerned Compadre.

Dear Larry:

Check this KEYT- NEWS article:

 

“Santa Maria Perjury ArrestWritten by Mabrisa Rodriguez

Story Created: Dec 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM PS A woman called to take the stand in the recent trial of a Santa Maria gang member is behind bars for perjury. Diana Perez Escobedo was called to the stand as a defense witness last month, and testified on behalf of Jesus Quevedo. Santa Maria police officials say Escobedo intentionally made false statements during her testimony. Escobedo was booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail Thursday on $25,000 bail.”

 

 “ Buenos dias Larry. (the email that I am responding too.)

Espero que todo los blessings for 2013 come your way and may your health be your wealth with strong prayers and good medicine. You shall be stronger and healthier for 2013 and beyond….

 

So the issue is how the DA’s crooked office is illegally forcing witnesses to testify against Raza. If they do not go with the D.A.’s wishes of legal prosecutorial theme, than defendant’s witnesses are being threatened in North County too. So ill-will testify or else if you do not go with the DA’s program than you are going to jail too? What the hell is going on? Pretty legally insane to give authoritarian rule and gripe for needing a new north jail in the county? If you get more information this would be a good story from the CCC website. In service and let me know what you think?”

 Your Compadre

 (Most of my reply that follows can be found on a story I published on my blog last August I did modify it slightly but here is my response.)

 

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2012/08/attention-attorney-michael-gennaco-from.html

 Can you say “Ruse Affidavit”, Perjury by Law Enforcement and the Santa Barbara County D.A.’s office is a way of life in Santa Maria

Dear Friend you are absolutely right with your concerns with the Santa Maria Police Department and District Attorneys Office and the lengths they are willing to go in order to obtain an illegal and UN Constitutional conviction. Last year it was brought to my attention from one of my blog readers that the Santa Maria police with the permission of the Santa Barbara D.A.’s office had created a new instrument to help them charge suspects who otherwise could have never been charged, this instrument is called a “Ruse Affidavit”. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that so many people whose sworn duty it is to up hold the Constitution have failed miserably on so many levels. Read what the media has said about the heavy handed tactics used in the north county.

“Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Kuns said in her opening statement for one case that includes a “Ruse Affidavit.” In a different case Santa Maria Superior Court Judge Kuns Rules Police Misconduct in Robbery Case, the use of “Ruse Affidavit” is basis for Misconduct!

Even the two Santa Maria Superior Court Judges who have dealt with the use of a “Ruse Affidavit’ in their court rooms understands this practice is illegal. Yet they still allow its use in the cases that were before them. So just as I have done earlier please read these two news press articles about the use of “Ruse Affidavits in the Santa Maria Superior Criminal Court System.@ http://www.santamariasun.com/cover/75… Or

http://m.santamariatimes.com/news/loc… 

Then the actual “Ruse Affidavit’ files referenced in the media articles above can be found at this link. @https://magicinsantabarbara.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/eliz-docs-ruse-warrant.pdf

First let’s all look at the Definition of an AFFIDAVIT: A sworn statement in writing made especially under oath or on affirmation before an authorized magistrate or officer that the information before him is true and verifiable.

Here is my attempt to define the term ‘Ruse Affidavit’ based on how it is being used by the Santa Maria Police Department with the permission of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office Definition of RUSE AFFIDAVIT:  obtaining a judicial signature with a fabricated sworn statement included as part of the affidavit. The only purpose of this act is to induce statements from a suspect whom they lack evidence for, by presenting these known false statements and or facts as true. The fabricated Ruse Affidavit must then also be illegally removed from the court files once the suspect is charged so that there is no proof of the arresting officer’s Constitutional violation against the now charged defendant.

 

As all of us know it is hard to be surprised any more in regards to judicial corruption based on our own personal experiences. But as we also know it is even harder to find a federal agency willing to perform their duty to the letter of the law. Now because the Los Angeles County Office of Review already has attorney Michael Gennaco in Santa Maria heading their investigation of the fatal shooting of Officer Covarrubias. I think we the Facebook followers of Lawless America can add the “Ruse Affidavit situation to his plate and demand a finding. Over the last month I have called Mr. Gennaco’s office and left two messages sharing my concern with the” Ruse Affidavits” used by the Santa Maria Police department, to date he has not returned my calls. I also emailed his office the letter below.

What I am thinking is that if one of us can create a generic phone statement asking why he has not addressed my concerns with the “Ruse Affidavit’ situation in Santa Maria. And as individuals all call in we may force his hand in the matter. Now should he not respond before the documentary team arrives in California, then it would be up to William Windsor and the film crew to visit him on camera. I really think this could be quite a victory for lawless America, and I hope you do too. The phone number for the Los Angeles County Office of Review is 1-323-890-5425, the attorney you want to speak with is Michael Gennaco!!

 

Attention Office of Review For Los Angeles County; The use of “Ruse Affidavits” (Santa Maria)

Date: 2012-07-25, 9:10AM PDT  Reply to this post

Good morning Mr. Gennaco,

My name is Larry Mendoza and I left you a phone message this morning. As promised I am forwarding to you a file from the Santa Maria police department that includes some discussion about the use of a “Ruse Affidavit” as part of their investigation. Best as I can tell Mr. Gennaco the term was coined by the D.A. and Santa Maria Police. Here is my attempt to define the term ‘Ruse affidavit’ based on how it is being used by the Santa Maria Police with the permission of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office; Definition of RUSE AFFIDAVIT: obtaining a judicial signature with a fabricated sworn statement included as part of the affidavit. The only purpose of this act is to induce statements from a suspect whom they lack evidence for, by presenting these known false statements and or facts as true. The fabricated Ruse Affidavit must then be illegally removed from the court files once the suspect is charged so that there is no proof of the arresting officer’s Constitutional violation against the now charged defendant.

Mr. Gennaco I write a blog called http://www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruptionblogspot.com I think the title says it all. I first became aware of the “Ruse Affidavit” when the defendants girlfriend contacted me and later forwarded me the same files I have just sent you. I feared that this situation could become dangerous for myself and said so in my posting. I decided that this abuse required me to at the very least make the same files available to the public and hung them on my blog. A few weeks later I was contacted by a reporter from Santa Maria who found the files on-line. We talked for about an hour and a half and he published a story ten days later. I have included two links to news press story’s talking about what was happening with the two cases that included “Ruse Affidavits’ as part of their file.

http://m.santamariatimes.com/news/loc…

http://www.santamariasun.com/cover/75…

Mr. Gennaco I am not trying to insult you but I am wondering if you have read Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley’s report on the officer involved shooting death of Mr. Covarrubias that originally brought you to Santa Maria? I hope you take the time to compare the D.A.’s account of how many rounds were fired and by whom against all the previous media reports. There is a huge discrepancy here and I wrote about it on my blog, I have included a link below to that story for your review.

In closing I hope we can have a phone conversation if you feel it could be valuable to your review. I learned a new phrase yesterday that seems to apply in far too many situations here in Santa Barbara County ‘ Under the Color of the law’. I am not a very well-educated person but some things seem to be spelling out all by themselves.

Best Regards

Larry Mendoza

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-did-4-shots-fired-by-santa-maria.htm

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments

45 minutes of Interview: Larry Mendoza with Bill Windsor of Lawless America Talking about the Santa Barbara Police and How I Was Harassed by Them

My time with Bill Windsor and Lawless America went better than I could have hoped for. After the interview I asked Bill to post a comment for my family and here is what he wrote; Lawless America Larry Mendoza is one of the stars of Lawless America, a documentary movie. His research about corruption is special. Larry is a superstar in the battle against government and judicial corruption.

Interview: Larry Mendoza with Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Interview: Larry Mendoza with Bill Windsor of Lawless America. Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are…
00:42:47
Added on 12/06/12
14 views
 I start my interview by talking about how in 2005 I had a feeling that I was being monitor not sure what I thought maybe law enforcement,. I even asked my then wife if she felt something. I also had issues with my bank account in 2005 ( I still have my statements ) and what seemed like double dipping any time I made an ATM withdraw. All these weird feelings before I was ever in Morgan Hill.Then while living in Morgan Hill I visited some people in Campbell CA. and while I was there the police showed up and arrested one of the people was I was visiting. While being interviewed by an officer who was sitting directly across another officer came over after running my drivers license. He handed my license to the interviewing officer but when he did that he turned looked directly at me and said my record was clean but there was an application for an 899 on me. What the hell is an 899?  Best as I can tell it is when law enforcement illegally uses the patriot act to violate our Constitutional rights without cause.
Now this was on an early Sunday morning like 6am, finally the police let me go but I was scared. Here I already felt like the Santa Barbara PD was in Morgan Hill and I was under some type of surveillance.  And now it seems that the officers wanted me aware of something and did so by talking about the 899 application. You have to remember that because I had a Real Estate licensed my finger prints had to be turned in to the Department of Justice, which means I had no criminal record. Now of course there were no drugs or alcohol involved in Campbell  but my family was already worried about me because of my depression. How I was dealing with my then wife and what they probably thought was just paranoia about everything else. So when I get back to my room in Morgan Hill I called my then wife and brother Ray to tell them about what had just happen in Campbell. I wanted them to trust me because I knew everyone was talking behind my back.
Worse yet I was already being threatened in my room by someone else staying at the Morgan Hill Extended Stay. I switched rooms three times during my two months there and every time the people harassing me would get a room right next to mine. I even made recordings to prove something was really going on and if I had 800 dollars I would pay the company I sent the recording too and deal with what was on there. In the interview I speak about my concerns with the Santa Barbara police and that I felt they were in Morgan Hill. As you all know I even spotted the SBPD following me on the freeway when I left Morgan Hill to return to Santa Barbara for my sisters (probation officers) wedding.
I wrote all this mainly for my family because they have never really sat down and tried to understand anything about me or what was going on before my wife filed for divorce and made false statements that I wanted to hurt her. No matter how much time passes I never threatened anyone and I heard what I heard in Morgan Hill. Why my brother will not be honest with the family and say he heard it too is still a mystery that hurts as much today as it did 6 years ago.
I know all these incidents seem hard to believe but they are nothing compared to everything I went through by myself when I got back to Santa Barbara. I am never afraid of repeating all this about Santa Barbara PD or Morgan Hill it happen I have ways to prove everything but honestly nobody in my family seems to care. I pretty much leave all the corruption alone now and just concentrate on my pension research. All my rights to do something in court about Morgan Hill, SBPD, the beating I took and false arrest have passed and I must move on. I am happy to share my personal experiences, research and knowledge to anyone who reaches out and ask me.

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Similarities between Santa Barbara & Sonoma County’s Pension Systems Retroactive Pension Benefit Increases and the Damage it Caused

Now yesterday I shared this story with you all(below) and today I want to share an example from our SBCERS pension that matches Mr. Churchill’s concerns. So today I emailed him the following;

http://unionwatch.org/how-retroactive-pension-increases-and-lower-investment-returns-have-blown-up-sonoma-countys-pension-system/

How Retroactive Pension Increases and Lower Investment Returns Have Blown Up Sonoma County’s Pension System  by KEN CHURCHILL on APRIL 5, 2012 · 25 COMMENTS

Mr. Churchill here is the example of how retroactive benefits created a pension deficit here in Santa Barbara County. The example is found on page 3 of County Auditor Controllers White Paper. If you notice his document was not created until 2006 to explain the action and loss of pension value that occurred between 1999 and 2000, also under Mr. Geis’s watch.

“County of Santa Barbara, Office of the Auditor-Controller

County Retirement Costs: White Paper by Robert W. Geis, CPA

(Through June, 30, 2006)Page 1 of 7  Case in point: In 1999 the County was 100% funded per the actuarial value method and 117% funded ($180 million surplus) per the market value method. In our opinion, this was just short of excellent. At that point decision makers decided to improve both active member and retired member benefits using surplus earnings to pay the benefits (a part of the $180 million surplus). The cost of these benefits created new liabilities for past service estimated by the actuaries to cost $87 million. During the implementation of the new benefits the market lost $142 million by 12/31/00. Therefore, the surplus to pay the benefits was wiped out and new liabilities were created that had not been paid for Page 3 of 7”

 Now Mr. Churchill this act and others bothered an independent third party and is reflected in their comments. 

“For an in-depth analysis, the County hired an independent third party (Kroll/Mercer) who issued an evaluation of the system dated November 7, 2006 (http://www.countyofsb.org/auditor/home.asp)They identified a number of concerns that should be addressed regarding retiree health benefits, the policy of using “excess earnings,” improving the methods to measure the cost of proposed new benefits, making the system more transparent (it is difficult to understand), confirm compliance with applicable laws and improve the stability of the system. To address these concerns, the County hired tax attorneys Ice Miller to guide us towards assuring the Retirement Plan is in compliance with IRS federal tax laws.”

 Mr. Churchill I hope you find all this useful I have been questioning the actions described in the 2006 “White Paper” for nearly 4 years now, so your article seems to have validated my fears. 

 Regards

 Larry Mendoza

 S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments