I would first like to say Thank You all for your kind thoughts and emails concerning my son Manuel who serves in our Navy and is in Japan. He is doing well and safe at this time.
I find it interesting that in the last two weeks my postings about election fraud by California Superior Court Judges has regained some popularity.
Below was the reason given in 2000 that our Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors could not support proposition 21 dealing with crimes commuted as a juvenile.
the term Gang Activity stating; a very broad and subjective redefinition of the concept of ‘gang activity’ or ‘gang related; allowing any public offense to be deemed a felony if it is deemed ‘gang related’;
It seems like the Santa Barbara Independent is actually reading the email I send them or we both came to similar observations. In this weeks edition writer Chris Meagher also makes a point to share the fact that former Supervisor Brooks Firestone actually had a hand in creating the current union deals while he was in office. So it would seem misleading on his part to come out as strong as he has against these contracts and act as if it had been created by the current board members.
Not to be out done by Mr. Meagher Independent writer Barney Brantingham also wrote a recent column on another past concern of mine. In the February 3rd edition of the Independent Mr. Brantingham shares his concerns with the offer to reduce the sentence of convicted Real Estate embezzler Tom Wilson. You might recall Mr. Wilson swindled his clients out of 14 million dollars. The Santa Barbara district attorneys office has offered to reduce Mr. Wilson’s sentence to 10 years instead of 20 if he were to return two million dollars. If he returns just 1 million dollars he would receive a reduction of only 5 years. So than you buy your self a sentence reduction with stolen funds that should have been seized as part of the investigation and criminal proceedings. Better yet the sentence reduction comes at a fire sale price of pennies on the stolen dollar.
I find that these days I don’t write about my thoughts as much as I used to. It seems that lately my postings tend to be the representing of others research and there findings. Some times though I must admit to feeling lucky. You see I really feel that the work I and others are doing is on a path that will not allow us to fail. An even though there are people out there who try to belittle our efforts, they know what we have already accomplished.
I asked a friend of mine the other day if he has ever seen on T.V. when you go before the Santa Barbara City commission to get you’re Building or Remodeling plans approved. The reason I asked him is because when you go before the panel one by one they share with you there input and present there concerns. However far too often what I hear them say in response to your ideas about your home or Investment is “what I would like to see is”. I mean who cares what they would like to see, I sure don’t. The response I wish they would use is “according to policy you have not met the requirement”. I mean I would hate it if five different members had the comment “what I would like to see on your property is”?
You see in a lot of ways that is the problem with so much of society today. Take me for instance. I have been beaten and no one will investigate. I have false criminal charges that the Public defenders office will not correct for me. On the other side of that coin I know I am protected by law enforcement so that I will not be further abused as I have been in the past. Don’t get me wrong I really appreciate the efforts that have been put forth on my behalf but I have a question. How do you decide which half of your oath to fulfill? I did not know the Constitution of the United States came in two parts. You can not stand next to Cam Sanchez and allow his shallow efforts to follow the law and meet your obligation to uphold the Constitution.
I do not care if you are a Policeman, City Councilman, Mayor or District Attorney. Governor, Senator or even President .We cannot allow individual interpretations of the Constitution and there applications and that is exactly what we have here in Santa Barbara. Before the framing of Ricardo Juarez for murder there was Efren Cruz. He too was falsely prosecuted in our Santa Barbara courts and sent to prison only to later be released.
Take Mary Barron and Greg Boller of the District attorneys office they too cannot impose there will while pressing false charges against me and violating me and the law. They failed in there obligation to upholding and defending y rights which by the way is there main job description. We cannot have Superior Court Judges who apply the law in a selective fashion as Judge Brian Hill does. My attorney for my false charges was Karen Adkins; Mr. Juarez’s attorney was also Karen Adkins. The Judge we both appeared before was Judge Hill. I was a 45 year old married man who had never been arrested. Mr. Juarez was a 14 year old youth who had never been a gang member or in trouble before. They tried Mr. Juarez as a adult hoping to obtain a conviction of life. I was sent a letter by my attorney that I was probably facing not 1 but 2 life sentences and she felt there was nothing she could do about it. In this day and age how is that even possible?
Yet they want us to believe that our District Attorneys office is capable of implementing an Individual Gang Injunction with out violating the law or individuals rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Based on my 5 years of observation I have seen no evidence that the District Attorneys office is even aware how to apply the law.
In the past even our Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors feared abuse was possible with the labeling such as the term Gang Activity stating; a very broad and subjective redefinition of the concept of ‘gang activity’ or ‘gang related; allowing any public offense to be deemed a felony if it is deemed ‘gang related’;
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Human Relations Commission
STAFF Mary E. O’Gorman, Human Relations Commission Administrator
SUBJECT: Opposition to Propositions 21 and 22
That the Board of Supervisors: a) take a position opposing Proposition 21, the ‘Juvenile Crime Initiative’; b) take a position opposing Proposition 22, the ‘Limits on Marriage’ Initiative
Alignment with Board Strategic Plan: The recommendation(s) are primarily aligned with: Goal No. 2. A Safe and Healthy Community in Which to Live, Work, and Visit; Goal No. 5.A High Quality of Life for All Residents; Goal No. 7. A Community that Fosters the Safety and Well-Being of Families and Children.
Executive Summary and Discussion:
At its January 20, 2000 meeting the Human Relations Commission voted to oppose Proposition 21, by a vote of 8-3, and to oppose Proposition 22 by a vote of 6-5.
a)Proposition 21, the ‘Juvenile Crime Initiative’ would, if passed, result in significant changes to the
Juvenile Justice system. The entire proposed law is 48 pages in length [ATTACHMENT 1]. Summaries and comparison charts prepared by the Legislative Analyst for the State of California, League of Women Voters,
Secretary of State and Chief Probation Officer Association are also attached. A list of individuals and
organizations opposed to Proposition 21 is attached [ATTACHMENT 6].
The most significant changes, and those which concerned the Human Relations Commission, include: a)the elimination of informal probation as an option for any juvenile arrested for any felony; mandating the filing of charges in adult court for certain offenses for offenders as young as 14, thus eliminating the review, evaluation, and recommendation by Probation Officers or the Juvenile Court Judge; b) a very broad and subjective redefinition of the concept of ‘gang activity’ or ‘gang related; allowing any public offense to be deemed a felony if it is deemed ‘gang related’;