Last week I shared with you that it seemed odd two recent major drug arrest had some how disappeared off the radar. I am of course referring to the drug arrest that had ties to the Santa Barbara D. A’s office ( Josh Lynn ). An the methamphetamine bust that charged William Paxson for maintaining a 1.8 million dollar dwelling for drug use/sales. No follow up story’s could be found in any local media what so ever. I even tried to search with Google and nothing beyond the initial arrest information was available. So I took the time to go down the the Santa Barbara criminal records division and do some public records research and see what information was available.
While I was there I also filled out the required documentation so I may review Peter Jeschke’s first case this week After that I looked up Erik Bjorklund and Kelsey O’Reilly and found there court case number 1350611. When I got home I went on the web site for the Santa Barbara Superior Court to search the calendering system, using there the case number. There are 9 total defendants who share this criminal case number. Yet my search on line using the case number produced results for just 1 of them, Rachel Ziemer. I thought how odd that my search would produce results for only 1 of the 9 defendant’s. Now if you recall I had already used the first and last names of Erik an Kelsey before and nothing would come up in my search. Here are my results when I searched for calendering information using just the case number.
CRIMINAL PUBLIC CALENDARS
CASE NUMBER: 1350611 ( 9 defendants share this criminal case number )
ALL LM ALL SB ALL SM ALL SV LM1 SB1 SB2 SB3 SB7 SB8 SB9 SB11 SB12 SM3 SM6 SM7 SM8 SM9
CALENDARS UPDATED: 2011-01-26 02:00:32
OFFICERDEPT01/31/2011 – 1:30 pm 1350611 Rachel Ziemer Preliminary Hearing Jed Beebe SM7
Not happy with these results an not one to quit I went to another part of our superior courts web site that allows you to search for any fine amounts you might owe. I entered the required information for both Mr. Bjorklund and Mr. O’Reilly and guess what? This search produced Calendering information, showing when both defendants are to next appear in Superior Court. Here is what was found in that search.
The Santa Barbara County Court Case Information System
|The following is information for the selected Case.
|Next Court Appearance
||01/31/2011, 1:30 PM
Santa Maria, Division 7
Case Number 1350611 Court Santa Maria Name Kelsey O’Reilly Next Court Appearance 01/31/2011, 1:30 PM
Santa Maria, Division 7
Now these results raise a huge red flag for me. How can the same web site for superior court produce two different results even though I input the same criteria? It appears someone is attempting to deny access to public information. The next question you have to ask yourself, is the service of hiding information for sale? Is it available to criminals for say a simple contribution to an election campaign? Which is exactly why we must investigate the relationship between a candidate for District Attorney and two contributors turned defendants. Remember these defendants where arrested with almost Ten million dollars in drugs!
Now wait a minute the hiding of public information in Santa Barbara seems to cross beyond the criminal courts. I had previously reported similar concerns while trying to research public records for real estate. I had pulled real estate information on line from the county’s web page. The next day I went down to the Santa Barbara court house and used there computer system in the lobby. An searching with the same criteria as on line I came up with nothing. So I went back home and double checked my search at the county web site and found the real estate information again.. Than I go back for my second visit to the court house and use the computer s in the lobby and again I came up with nothing. So I decide to fill out the records request any how using the information I had found on line and handed it to the clerks behind the counter, an guess what? The on line results were available on the clerks computer, but the on line results were not available on the public computers in the lobby. Once again you have one informational system producing two different results and the computers are only 30 feet from each other.
Now because I have also been investigating some personal property tax issues I have with this county I made another observation. That the public records made available by our elected county officials to real estate web sites like Zillow @http://www.zillow.com/ or Trulia @ http://www.trulia.com/
are extremely inaccurate.There seems to be an issue of missing property tax data for 2008 all together.The data found at the these two real estate web sites are under reporting the revenue this county is taking in from property taxes.Late fee’s an fines are not included in the data these sites have obtained from public records. In my case the records where so inaccurate that I requested a payment history search. I made that request over two months ago and I have yet to receive anything from the Tax Collectors office. Wait a minute I am mistaken I did receive a new bill from the tax collector for a past outstanding debt from probation. The new invoice has some how added 4500 dollars above the previous outstanding balance.Now my question to you all here is this.What would happen to the over charge amount of 4500 dollars if I were to pay it? Do you think the additional 4500 dollars would actually be reflected on the bottom line of the county’s public ledger?
So than let me go to another area of extremely misleading accounting..While reviewing the data available for the SBCERS pension from the State Controllers office I kept getting confused. I would look over this year or that one and the numbers were all out of place but I could not understand how or why..Now I have been working on that report as well as one on the two recent mistrials that occurred in Superior Court all weekend. So for right now I m going to make a simple example using actual data and finish the complete report when time allows
Here are some numbers taken from the 1997/98 State Controllers report that was only supposed to include data up to 06/30/98
. The top of the page would say fund value as of 06/30/98 was 1,062,931,561.
On the lower portion of the page where fund history performance was shown it would look like this
Year ending 12/31/98 liability was 873,624,000 (D) 12/31/98
Year end Actuarial Value year end was 799,539,000 © 12/31/98
Funded Ratio 91.5%
So based on these numbers above let me ask you all this. How is it possible that the fund value in June could be worth 263 million dollars more than the reported December Actuarial value? June 98 value 1,062,931,563 December 98 Actuarial value 799,539,000? Lets take that one step further, from December 97 to December 98 the return on investment was reported to be 20% ?
….June 98 1,062,931,561
6 months later the fund value is lower by 263 million dollars and reported as
December 98 799,539,999
Yet the return on investment 12/97 – 12/98 20%
Summary of Average Yields ………………………………….1997……………,1998…………….,1999
Counties AVG Yield……………. Avg……………… Avg……………… Avg.
Santa Barbara County ………..20.3% …………..19.3% …….10.9%
Now because the pension fund is reporting 20.3% and 19.3% return on back to back years let me ask you this. How is it possible with those kind of returns the pension fund ratio only went from 91.5% to 98.7%.? Do you see all the issues with how the SBCERS pension fund value never seems to live up to the per year Investment return results? I can only open your eyes so much by pointing out these huge 100 million dollar contradictions.
For us to rebuild our economy, for us to properly finance our children s education will require action by us all.
You will find this data on the top of the page in the picture below.
STATEMENT OF PLAN NET ASSETS
AS OF JUNE 30, 1998
NET ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR BENEFITS $ 1,062,931,561AS OF JUNE 30, 1998
End value IN TRUST FOR PENSION BENEFITS $ 1,062,931,561 as of June 30th 1998
Previous years end value for Pension Benefits $ 888,876,118 as of June 30th 1997
You will find this data towards the bottom third of the picture below.
Now below that there is the
SUMMARY OF FUNDING POSITION year ending 12/31/98
LIABILITY ……. 873,624,000
ACTUARIAL VALUE……… 799,539,000 12/31/98
In the picture below in the section that shows a year to year history of the funds performance and fund ratio, why is the history for 12/31/97 missing?
In closing how was I able to create a link between missing criminal calendering data to real estate data and end up with discrepancy’s with our Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System? Because we hold no one and no one accountable. From Superior Court Judges to tax collectors we offer a free ride, no pun intended.
If you click on the picture below and are at http://www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
the picture will open up to a new window.