Irregularities with our Santa Barbara Law Enforcement and D.A.’s office.

Take a peek at this web page and all the irregularities with our Santa Barbara Law Enforcement and D.A.’s office.

Take a peek at this web page and all the irregularities with our Santa Barbara Law Enforcement and D.A.’s office.

http://reflectionsonthedance.blogspot.com/2011/05/undisclosed-source-offers-up-further.html

WHAT’S GOING ON IN SANTA BARBARA?

While it is obvious that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Michael Jackson, there are other allegations of abuse on Sneddon’s part that have been ignored by the mainstream media. The following people have accused Sneddon and his employees of malicious prosecution, conspiracy, abuse of power and civil rights violations.

And these are just the cases that have been made public…

Gary Dunlap
Efren Cruz
Thambiah Sundaram
Slick Gardner
The Adams Brothers
Emilio Sutti
Nuevo Energy Company
Art Montandon
William Wagener
Diana Hall
Members of the SBPD
Police Abuse Lawsuit
The case Sneddon ignored
Druyan Byrne
Conrad Jess Zapien
Anthenasios Boulas
James William Herring
Richard Joal Wagner
Gary Dunlap

In November 2003, Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon, accusing him of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiracy and malicious prosecution. Earlier that year, Sneddon had charged Dunlap with perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents in a case that Dunlap had handled. Dunlap was acquitted on all charges but claims his reputation has been irreparably harmed as a result of the proceedings. In an interview with Online Legal Review’s Ron Sweet, Dunlap claimed that Sneddon stacked the charges against him in order to get a conviction on at least one count; apparently, this is a common occurrence in Sneddon’s office. Dunlap also discussed Sneddon’s frequent abuse of power and claimed that there are other lawyers who have seen this. A judge recently upheld most of Dunlap’s lawsuit and the case will soon go to trial unless a civil settlement is reached.

In related news, Dunlap’s lawyer Joe Freeman recently sent a complaint asking that federal, state and county officials investigate Tom Sneddon and members of the Santa Barbara Police Department for misconduct. “In my opinion, the matters to be investigated are the possible criminal violations of several felony and misdemeanour statutes, including conspiracy, illegal taping, deceiving a court and a prosecutor illegally assisting the defense of a case,” Freeman said in his complaint. “I respectfully request that the U.S. Attorney, the California Attorney General, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury and the State Bar open investigations and seek whatever sanctions are found to be warranted against Sneddon and his staff.” In response to the allegations, the SBPD’s attorney Jake Stoddard said that Sneddon and his employees are immune from legal action because they are prosecutors.

Back to Top

Efren Cruz

In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit also accused District Attorney Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution. Cruz was incarcerated for four years after being convicted of murder in 1997. The lawsuit claimed that prosecutors had evidence favourable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real murderer was caught on tape confessing to the crime. Regardless, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction until the case was taken to a higher court where Cruz was exonerated.

Back to Top

Thambiah Sundaram

Thambiah Sundaram’s contentious relationship with Santa Barbara authorities began when he opened a non-profit dental clinic in the county and began to attain political status as a result. After unsuccessfully trying to have the clinic shut down, authorities arrested Sundaram for grand theft, impersonating a doctor and malicious mischief. His wife was also arrested and an employee at the clinic was later charged with committing a drive-by shooting. All three were found not guilty. Sundaram sued Sneddon and his employees for conspiracy, false imprisonment and several civil rights violations. He was awarded almost $300,000 in damages.

Sundaram also attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.

Back to Top

Slick Gardner

Slick Gardner is a horse rancher who owns 2,000 acres of land in Santa Barbara. In 2003, Gardner was investigated for animal abuse after his neighbours reported that some of his horses looked unhealthy. Around the same time the allegations hit, Gardner ran for 3rd District Supervisor against John Buttny, Steve Pappas and Brooks Firestone. Firestone – who owns a successful winery in Santa Barbara and who also has political ties to Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff Jim Thomas – won the election by a landslide. As a result of the bad publicity from the animal abuse allegations, Gardner got the least amount of votes.

While investigating Gardner for animal abuse, Santa Barbara authorities also stumbled upon evidence of grand theft. Gardner was charged with 12 felony counts and hired defense attorney Steve Balash to represent him in the case. Balash later backed out of the case saying it was too complicated.

According to Gardner, Sneddon has had a grudge against him for 30 years and is only prosecuting him out of spite. “It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done,” Gardner said.

“The same thing that’s happening to Michael Jackson happened to me. One day Sneddon is going to wake up with a boot up his ass with a white glove in it, and it will be about time.”

Judge Rodney Melville, the same judge who will be presiding over Michael Jackson’s trial, is also involved in Gardner’s case.

Back to Top

Adams Bros. Farming, Inc.

In 1997, the Adams brothers purchased 268-acres of land in Orcutt and began agricultural grading on the site. 95-acres of their land was deemed an “environmentally sensitive wetland” by Santa Barbara authorities, which prevented the farmers from using it.

The brothers filed a lawsuit against the County in 2000, alleging that officials had falsely designated a portion of their land as wetland in an attempt to jeopardize the company’s financial earnings. At the request of Santa Barbara County officials, Judge Rodney Melville dismissed the brothers’ action. The brothers took their case to an appeals court where Melville’s decision was overturned.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the County had violated the company’s constitutional right to use its land and that the County and a county consultant had conspired to interfere with the company’s income.

Back to Top

Emilio Sutti

Emilio Sutti is a dairyman and farmer who recently filed a $10 million lawsuit against Santa Barbara County, claiming to have been the target of a government conspiracy to interfere with his company’s profits. Sutti alleged that Santa Barbara authorities have been targeting his family’s land for years. The battle began when Emilio’s brother and business partner Ed was sued by Santa Barbara County Planning and Development for alleged environmental and grading ordinance violations.

After winning a partial victory in the lawsuit, Ed Sutti was arrested and indicted for arson, witness intimidation, making terrorist threats, making false statements to an insurer, giving false deposition and four counts of state income tax evasion.

Emilio’s Sutti’s civil lawsuit was handled by Judge Rodney Melville.

Back to Top

Nuevo Energy Company

According to an article from The Lompoc Record: “Nuevo Energy Company has a launched a three-pronged legal attack on Santa Barbara County, claiming it violated state environmental law in using wrong baseline data in an environmental impact report, wasn’t the correct lead agency to prepare the report and wrongly applied mitigation measures in denying the Tranquillon Ridge project.” Judge Rodney Melville presided over the case.

Back to Top

Art Montandon

Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon recently filed a claim against the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, alleging that they falsely accused him of bribing a defense attorney in a case that Sneddon was prosecuting. Montandon had evidence favourable to the defense and prosecutors tried to stop him from interfering by threatening to bring bribery charges against him. A judge later ruled that Sneddon’s office had no right to stop Montandon’s involvement in the case.

In a letter, Montandon denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at Sneddon and his employees, saying: “Unlike (Assistant District Attorney Christie) Stanley and current and former members of her office, I have never had my license to practice law suspended by the State Bar, have never been convicted of a crime, and have never been terminated from any attorney job.”

At the end of his letter, Montandon said he would reveal in court: “the full and complete story of not only the District Attorney’s unprofessional conduct, but the inappropriate conduct and motives of others working behind the scenes to cause community conflict.”

Recently, Montandon requested that the State Bar investigate Sneddon and his office for obstruction of justice.

Back to Top

William Wagener

William Wagener ran for 5th District County Supervisor in 2002 and was arrested shortly before the election. Because he was a convicted felon, Wisconsin authorities claimed that he had no right to run for political office. As a result, Wagener was arrested by Santa Barbara authorities.

In response, Wagener’s attorney John Holland said that his client’s prior conviction should have had no effect on his right to be a political candidate. He also said that because the terms of Wagener’s probation had been given to the SBPD in 1998, authorities were already aware of his record when they allowed him to run for office.

The charges against Wagener were dropped and he was released from jail. Still, his attorney accused Sneddon’s office of making sure Wagener was: “defamed and ridiculed in the local media in order to destroy his campaign for public office.” Wagener filed a lawsuit against the city of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County and former Police Chief John Sterling, accusing them of violating his civil rights.

The lawsuit alleges that Police Chief John Sterling “had actual, advance knowledge of the plan by other defendants to falsely arrest, inaccurate and violate (Wagener’s) California and Federal civil rights.” Wagener claimed that authorities conspired against him because they wanted his opponent Joe Centeno to win the election.

Back to Top

Diana Hall

According to Gary Dunlap, when a local judge refused to change her ruling in Sneddon’s favour, Sneddon brought bogus charges against her, ruined her career and publicly humiliated her by exposing that she was a lesbian. When it became apparent to Sneddon that this judge would be a witness in the Gary Dunlap case, he threatened to bring more charges against her. The judge in question is Diana Hall.

On September 29, 2003, Hall was acquitted on charges of battery but eight months later found herself accused of violating campaign laws. On January 16th, 2004, she showed up at Michael Jackson’s arraignment because she wanted to see how Judge Rodney S. Melville handled motions. Hall told reporters: “I’m not being treated well. This has ruined my reputation, and I’m just not going to take it any longer.”

Back to Top

Members of the SBPD

In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Tom Sneddon for threatening the police officers’ right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney’s office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, “It’s confusing. He’s an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don’t know why he did this.” Future blackmail material perhaps?

Back to Top

David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson and George Beeghly

In a civil lawsuit that was settled out of court, David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson George Beeghly sued Sheriff Jim Thomas and several Santa Barbara police officers for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest/false imprisonment, excessive force, retaliation for exercise of speech and petition rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, violation of First Amendment right of association, malicious prosecution, negligence, battery and conspiracy and other charges.

Back to Top

The Case Sneddon Ignored

Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice for an allegedly abused child or is he merely a prosecutor with a grudge trying to get a conviction? Sneddon’s handling of a past child molestation case would indicate the latter.

In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl. After returning home intoxicated, Danielson climbed into his bed where the girl, who was a guest at his home, was sleeping. Danielson admitted to “accidentally” molesting her, claiming he had mistaken her for his wife. Sneddon closed the case stating that there was no evidence to corroborate the girl’s claims.

The girl involved in the case wrote her feelings down in a letter that was published in the Santa Maria Times. “I am astounded at the stupidity the DA showed by allowing this man to be released of all charges. David Danielson may be free, but I am still emotionally trapped. There is not one day that I don’t wish I wouldn’t have come clean.”

About Sneddon’s handling of the Michael Jackson case, the girl’s father said, “Maybe it’s because it is high profile… but still, in her mind it’s the same situation. She’s still angry.”

While it seems that child abuse might not be Tom Sneddon’s first priority, the question still remains whether or not he would really pursue seemingly false allegations in order to carry out his own personal agenda. After learning the facts about the Michael Jackson case and reading through the numerous accusations that have been made against Tom Sneddon, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about that…

Back to Top

Druyan Byrne

In September 2003, a drama teacher named Druyan Byrne was arrested after police were told that Byrne had photographs of a partially nude 15-year-old girl on his camera. Although the photographs were taken for an art project and were not sexual in nature, authorities insisted on going forward with their case against Byrne.

The girl in the photographs, who was brought in for questioning on five separate occasions, repeatedly denied that anything sexual had transpired between her and Byrne. In response, police told the girl that she was a liar and that it was “obvious to everyone around here that there is some kind of relationship going on.”

Santa Barbara Police Detective Stuart Gardner then lied to the girl, falsely stating that police had proof of Byrne’s past sexual relationships with minors. Although no such evidence actually existed, Gardner convinced the girl that Byrne was a sexual predator and that it was up to her to prevent him from harming anybody else. “I’m just telling you the pattern with these guys. And he fits it to a tee,” Gardner told the girl. “Do you see how this could happen to other girls? Do you see how important you are that this isn’t going to happen to any other girls?”

After being interrogated for hours, the girl finally told Gardner that she and Byrne had kissed on the lips, a statement that she later recanted. “I felt the only way I was going to get out of that room was to tell [Gardner] what he wanted and tell him something happened,” she testified.

The case against Druyan Byrne is still pending. Thanks to MJEOL for the info.

Back to Top

Conrad Jess Zapien

In 1985, Conrad Jess Zapien was arrested for allegedly murdering his brother-in-law’s mistress. While jury selection was underway, Deputy District Attorney Gary Van Camp and investigator Harry Heidt inadvertently came across a tape that belonged to Zapien’s defense counsel. The tape was in a sealed envelope that bore the name of Zapien’s attorney Bill Davis.

Upon finding the package, Van Camp allegedly urged Heidt to open the envelope and listen to the tape. Van Camp later denied ever having made such a statement and both he and Heidt denied ever having listened to the tape, an act that would have violated Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. Rather than return the package to Zapien’s attorney, Heidt discarded of the package by throwing it in a dumpster.

Zapien’s attorney argued that by getting rid of the package, Heidt had “deprived the defense of the only physical evidence it could use to impeach Heidt and Van Camp regarding whether they unsealed the envelope and listened to the tape.” For example, if the envelope was unsealed, he argued, such evidence would have contradicted both Van Camp’s and Heidt’s assertion that they did not open the package. Furthermore, tests could have been conducted on the tape to determine whether or not it had been listened to.

Zapien later filed a motion asking that Tom Sneddon and the entire Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office be recused from the case. Zapien argued that although Sneddon had taken Van Camp off of the case, he failed to properly investigate the violation of Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. He further argued that Sneddon brought an auto theft charge against him even though there was no credible evidence to support the charge. Zapien’s motion was denied.

Back to Top

Anthenasios Boulas

In 1985, a man named Anthenasios Boulas retained a lawyer after being arrested for selling cocaine. Shortly after hiring the lawyer, referred to in court documents as “Attorney S,” Boulas also hired a Private Investigator named William Harkness. On Boulas’ behalf, Harkness got in contact with sheriff’s deputy Scott Tunnicliffe to inquire about a possible plea bargain. In exchange for leniency, Boulas would provide authorities with the names of several drug dealers in the area. “Attorney S” was not aware of this potential deal.

After meeting with Boulas and Harkness, Tunnicliffe broached the subject of a plea bargain to Robert Calvert, the Deputy District Attorney at the time. Calvert said that he would only agree to the deal if Boulas fired his attorney and hired a lawyer that met with his approval. After being convinced by Tunnicliffe that “Attorney S” was a drug addict who could not be trusted, Boulas fired him and attempted to find another attorney. Taking the advice of Sheriff’s deputies, he hired “Attorney C,” who later backed out of the case.

Without a lawyer representing him and under the pretense that he would be receiving a plea bargain, Boulas met with authorities and gave them information about several drug dealers in the area. After giving them this information, Boulas was told by authorities that the plea bargain would no longer be possible.

Several months later, Boulas filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. The court ruled that although “conduct by the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department interfered with his rights to counsel and to a fair trial,” they would not drop the charges against him.

Boulas then took his case to a higher court where the case was ultimately dismissed. According to documents, the court found the conduct of Sneddon’s office: “outrageous in the extreme, and shocking to the conscience; we are, thereby, compelled to order the dismissal of the present case.”

Back to Top

James William Herring

In 1993, the Santa Barbara District’s Attorney’s office was admonished for making racially insensitive comments during the trial of James William Herring, a biracial man who had been accused of rape. During closing arguments, prosecutors described Herring as “primal man in his most basic level… his idea of being loved is sex. He wouldn’t know what love was. He’s like a dog in heat.”

Herring’s conviction was overturned because of the highly prejudicial, unfounded comments that prosecutors made about him throughout the trial. Prosecutors described him as a “parasite” and made the inference that because Herring was unemployed, he was more likely to have raped the complaining witness. Furthermore, prosecutors made inflammatory comments about defense attorneys in general, saying: “my people are victims. His people are rapists, murderers, robbers, child molesters. He has to tell them what to say. He has to help them plan a defense. He does not want you to hear the truth.” Such a statement created the false impression that anyone who is accused of a crime is guilty.

The Court of Appeals ruled that “the prosecutor’s… statements about a biracial defendant are, at the very least, in bad taste” and that his unfounded remarks about Herring’s defense counsel lead to an unfair conviction. As a result, Herring’s conviction was overturned.

Back to Top

Richard Joal Wagner

In the early 1970s, Richard Joal Wagner was convicted in a Santa Barbara court of selling marijuana. He appealed the jury’s conviction, claiming prosecutorial misconduct during his own cross-examination because prosecutors implied that he had been caught dealing narcotics in the past. Some of the questions asked include:

“Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Wagner, that in Alaska you are not only in the business of putting up fences, but you are also in the business … of furnishing cocaine a drug, for sale, illegally, isn’t that correct?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that you have in fact sold heroin?

“Q. … To your knowledge, at your place of business, is there any illegal sale of narcotic activity going on?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, that you have received … a shipment of ‘pure pharmacy’ cocaine?

“Q. … Now, isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, you had in your possession approximately three kilograms of pure pharmacy cocaine . .?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that those three kilograms of cocaine were in a shoebox?”

Although prosecutors failed to present any evidence of Wagner’s alleged past offenses, they created the impression in the minds of the jurors that Wagner had been involved in the sale of narcotics before, thus leading to an unfair conviction. Sneddon was not the District Attorney at the time but he was one of the led prosecutors on the case. The appeals court ruled that the conduct of the District Attorney’s office was prejudicial to the defendant and thus overturned Wagner’s conviction.

Back to Top

We should add
Ricardo Juarez
Corey Lyons
Larry Mendoza
Gil Armijo
Eric Frmpong

Santa Barbara County Geography 27.77% or 1,052.07 square miles is water, really?

I was looking up some land law suits and I saw that Santa Barbara County has  used water issues to take property away from private citizens. So as usual I looked up the land to water ratio and was stunned to see the claim that almost 28% is water. What do you guys think about these facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_County,_California 

Santa Barbara County Geography 27.77% is water really?
According to the 2000 census, the county has a total area of 3,789.08 square miles (9,813.7 km2), of which 2,737.01 square miles (7,088.8 km2) (or 72.23%) is land and 1,052.07 square miles (2,724.8 km2) (or 27.77%) is water.

I find these figures extremely hard to believe. It also makes me wonder who has the rights to all this WATER, the farmers would love it.

Advertisements

About magicinsantabarbara

Our Santa Barbara Criminal and Civil Superior Courts often abuse’s us with illegal and unjust judgments and convictions. So I investigate, law enforcement, judge’s, elected officials and our California Public Pensions trying to expose the corruption we are being forced to accept. We must always respect and support those who practice the law in an even and ethical manner and demand it from those who do not. Here you can find data for SBCERS, VECRA, LACERA .pensions as well as others.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Irregularities with our Santa Barbara Law Enforcement and D.A.’s office.

  1. Robin says:

    You should be more careful about what you print on your website. You don’t know any of these people that you are discussing on here. I knew Druyan Byrne, and worked with him the summer before the arrests happened. I had my suspicions about him from the time we met, something just didn’t seem right and I certainly didn’t think he should be working with kids. Later that summer, one of the girls (15) confessed that he had coerced her to his house and tried to force her to take nude photographs, which she declined (not without a struggle). He also tried to get very touchy with most of the girls. I’m very thankful that he was convicted on multiple counts, and think he should have gotten a lot more time in jail. The fact that you are printing his name in this context suggests that you support him and the terrible things he did to young girls.

    • I am sorry I did not write that story I just posted it on my blog. I have no tolerance for crimes against children especially sex offenders. In the case of how our Santa Barbara District Attorneys office dealt with the convicted sex offender Peter Jeschke, I have been extremely out spoken. I have contacted several groups in hopes of making this convicted sex offender appear on Megan’s Law. There is also another case that involved two young girls that I have been out spoken about. I am sorry for what your friends have gone through. Thank you for reading my blog and a bigger thank you for sharing your thoughts.

      Best Regards

      Larry “Magic’ Mendoza

      By the way The Peter Jeschke case has the most hits of any of my postings on my two blogs, the public does care.

      https://magicinsantabarbara.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/page/14/
      Posted on January 22, 2011 by magicinsantabarbara
      So my latest posting about convicted sex offender Peter Jeschke new charges was a huge disappointment to have to write. An it seems the general public and my readers where just as stunned in disbelief that he would be allowed … Continue reading →

      Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Edit
      Convicted Santa Barbara sex offender Peter Jeschke rearrested. Why does this criminal receive all the special treatment that he does from local Law Enforcement? Sometimes I have a hard time on how to create a new posting, an other times my foresight is sadly dead on. Convicted sex offender Peter Jeschke was rearrested on several charges last week and appeared in court yesterday. His new charges included failing to notify law enforcement of his new address within the mandated 5 days which is a felony. He also failed to notify parents of minors he was coaching tennis to that he was a registered sex offender, which is a misdemeanor. However did the Santa Barbara district attorney’s office forget that Judge Ochoa also ruled that Mr. Jeschke was not to have any contact with males or females under the age of 18? Before I can continue on what is wrong with this new charges we must revisit my past concerns with how Mr. Peter Jeschke seems to have been receiving preferential treatment through out his first go around with our Santa Barbara Superior Court and the District Attorneys office. I was extremely upset to learn that even though he was Court ordered to register as a sex offender there is a loop hole that allows him to register as an offender an yet not be subject to appearing on Megan’s Law web page. An even though this loop hole does exists in order for Mr. Jechke to take advantage of it would require some additional preferential treatment by our Courts an D.A. You see there is still a second case pending from the original charges that stem from way back in December 2007. If and when he is convicted of the second set of charges that would than eliminate his eligibility for use of the currently present loop hole and thus require his photo appearance on the Megan’s law web page. So why has the second case taken so long to address? Now of all my 280 postings this subject ranks as one of the top concerns by my readers. In fact the way I came across the news of his new arrest today was during a phone conversation with a concerned citizen. As we covered topics from SBCERS pension fraud to Cam Sanchez and him being sued they mentioned Mr. Jeschke had been rearrested. An not only that he had been rearrested, but that the arrest occurred in the exact hypothetical fashion I had wrote about several months ago. People I am not that damn smart and our County’s soft stance on child molesters and sex offenders must stop. An let me tell you I have heard from several concerned citizens who have shared other case’s where the defendant in a child molestation case received what seemed extremely soft sentencing. The first time I wrote about my concerns with the handling of Mr. Jeschke nobody was aware he was not on Megan’s Law web page or that a loop hole exist. Back than I received an email from Santa Barbara district attorney Joyce Dudley who just happen to be the prosecutor on the first case. An that was followed up with another email from Janet Neely of the California attorney generals office an neither correspondence seemed to be concerned with the loop whole that Mr. Jeschke was taking advantage of. Well regardless of past actions what I feel we must now concentrate on is having our District Attorney office update and inform the proper authority’s that Mr. Jeschke is no longer eligible for the loop hole and must now and forever have his appearance present on the Megan law web page. The D.A. must than add additional charges for the contact with minors,since Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Ochoa had previously stipulated no such contact could take place. Mr. Jeschke has clearly shown he has no regard for the law or criminal process but don’t take my word for it, just look at the quotes below from the prosecutor and presiding Judge of this case.(“In my 27 years on the bench, I haven’t ever had someone try to manipulate the process as Mr. Jeschke did,” Judge Ochoa said.“In urging prison time, Senior Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley said, ” : he is truly the worst groomer-predator that I have ever prosecuted-I say that because he used his position of power (coach), control (18 years older than his victim), and status (he was a star tennis player) to give her drugs and sexually assault her, putting her in harm’s way both physically (driving) and medically (unprotected sex).”) I have also included past media coverage regrading the first criminal case for Mr. Jeschke. Having shared all that this man has been sitting in jail since last week and no press or media coverage until today? Maybe Police Chief Cam Sanchez could come up with some kind of sex offender injunction that only targets individuals? Sorry I could not pass that up. You see every time Mr. Sanchez needs to get the dogs off his trail he throws out the words “ Gang Injunction’. Last year as the group of parents known as P.A.D.R.E.S. where about to have a press conference at the court house because many of the parents felt the term alleged gang member was incorrectly being applied. What a coincidence that police chief Sanchez also had a story appear in the same issue discussing “Gang Injunction’. It must be some type of crutch he seems to use when every he is in political hot water. Now he is being sued over his mother in laws health care bills from her stay in a local rest home. Watch out Mr. Sanchez they must be on to you, oh wait I’ll use the MAGIC words “ Gang Injunction” and throw them off my trial. Yes there is a “Gang Issue’ in Santa Barbara but there is also a conduct issue by our police chief and other elected officials. The next time he brings up the idea of a “Gang Injunction’ ask him what he thinks about the idea of starting a Public Integrity Division in our D.A.’s office, Los Angeles has one! http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-is-second-trial-of-convicted-sex.html Why is the second trial of convicted sex offender Peter Jeschke taking so long. It seems bias treatment so as to keep him from reporting to Megan’s Law web site, which is right where he belongs! Posted on November 6, 2010 by magicinsantabarbara Below are some quotes taken from a feature written by columnist Barney Brantingham that appeared in the Santa Barbara Independent 11/25/09. The feature was titled “Sex is not a sport” and deal with the conviction and sentencing of sex offender Peter Jeschke. Current Santa Barbara district attorney an than prosecutor in the case Joyce Dudley had this to say; “In urging prison time, Senior Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley said, ” : he is truly the worst groomer-predator that I have ever prosecuted-I say that because he used his position of power (coach), control (18 years older than his victim), and status (he was a star tennis player) to give her drugs and sexually assault her, putting her in harm’s way both physically (driving) and medically (unprotected sex).” Soft on sentencing California superior court judge Frank Ochoa shared these thoughts; “In my 27 years on the bench, I haven’t ever had someone try to manipulate the process as Mr. Jeschke did,” Judge Ochoa said.I don’t know what kind of future is in store for the ex-coach. Judge Ochoa will decide on December 7 whether he must register as a sex offender.” http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/peter-jeschke-santa-barbara-convicted.html Ex-tennis coach found guilty of sex crimes By ERIC LINDBERG — May 13, 2009 A jury found a former Santa Barbara High School assistant tennis coach guilty yesterday of having sex with a 16-year-old student, although they failed to reach a decision on several drug-related counts and found him not guilty on other drug charges. Peter Aibor Jeschke, now 35, was arrested in December 2007 and faces up to 10 years in prison as a result of the verdict, Senior Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley said. The jury found Jeschke guilty of sexual penetration by a foreign object, three counts of oral copulation and two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, as well as a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana. He was found not guilty of administering an intoxicating substance to a minor in order to commit a felony and furnishing marijuana to a minor. The jury was divided 7-5 on charges of furnishing cocaine and ecstasy to a minor. His sentencing is scheduled for June 24. Both Dudley and defense attorney Lara Yeretsian claimed victory following the verdict yesterday. “The bottom line is a child came forward and a jury believed her,” Dudley said. “So it sends a message to other children that if they are being molested, they can come forward.” Yeretsian, however, noted that the major drug-related counts had been dropped, along with several others during the course of the trial itself. “We were looking at 20-plus years when we started and now we’re looking at eight years maximum,” she said. “I think the jury has spoken loud and clear, especially on the drug counts. I see this as a victory.” Dudley noted that there was no evidence of cocaine or ecstasy found during a search following Jeschke’s arrest, and no way to test the victim for those drugs. While she doesn’t doubt the victim’s account of being given drugs by Jeschke, Dudley said she understood the jury’s need for forensic evidence. Jeschke is also facing upcoming charges of witness intimidation, Dudley said, after he allegedly asked several teenagers he knew at the high school to call key witnesses and threaten them in an attempt to get them to change their testimony or not testify at all. Dudley said there are at least three potential victims of witness intimidation and each charge would count as a strike against Jeschke if he were found guilty. Although she is unsure if she will represent Jeschke during any future criminal proceedings, Yeretsian said she is hopeful that the District Attorney’s Office will drop any witness intimidation charges that may be filed. “I would hope that they would just move on instead of dragging all these teens back to court,” she said. Jeschke served as a volunteer for the boys tennis team in spring 2006 before being hired as a walk-on tennis coach for both girls and boys teams. School officials said volunteer and walk-on coaches are fingerprinted and noted at the time of the arrest that a background check of Jeschke in 2006 had failed to turn up a criminal history. The victim’s friends had apparently learned of the sexual relationship between the 16-year-old student and the 34-year-old tennis coach. They approached school officials, who handed off the investigation to police. http://www.thedailysound.com/111709jeschkesentence Former tennis coach sentenced for sex crimes By ERIC LINDBERG — Nov. 17, 2009 A former Santa Barbara High School assistant tennis coach was sentenced to one year in county jail after being found guilty earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student. Peter Aibor Jeschke was arrested in December 2007 and found guilty of sexual penetration by a foreign object, three counts of oral copulation and two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, as well as a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana, by a jury in May of this year. He was found not guilty of administering an intoxicating substance to a minor in order to commit a felony and furnishing marijuana to a minor. The jury was divided 7-5 on charges of furnishing cocaine and ecstasy to a minor. “Given the defendant’s heinous actions towards a very vulnerable victim, he was deserving of a prison sentence,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley said. The prosecutor said she had pressed for a stiffer sentence of seven years and eight months in state prison for Jeschke, but the victim’s mother apparently asked that the defendant undergo rehabilitation. Jeschke will return to court next month for final sentencing proceedings, during which Judge Frank Ochoa will decide whether the defendant must register as a sex offender. Following his one-year term in county jail, the defendant will be on probation with his state prison term suspended. Dudley said if Jeschke violates his probation, he could be sentenced to the full prison term of seven years and eight months. Jeschke also faces additional charges of witness intimidation after he allegedly asked several teenagers to call key witnesses and threaten them during his trial. He will appear in court next month as attorneys schedule a date for a preliminary hearing into those charges. The defendant served as a volunteer for the boys tennis team at Santa Barbara High School in spring 2006 before being hired as an assistant coach for both tennis teams. The victim’s friends apparently learned of a sexual relationship between the 16-year-old student and the 34-year-old tennis coach, leading to his arrest. http://www.keyt.com/news/local/78708747.html Former Tennis Coach Must Register As Sex Offender Christina Heller Story Created: Dec 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM PDT Story Updated: Dec 7, 2009 at 6:20 PM PDT Santa Barbara, CA– Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa ordered a former high-school tennis coach to register as a sex offender. Peter Jeschke was found guilty last May for having sex with, and giving drugs to a minor. Despite prosecutors claims that Jeschke should serve prison time for the crimes committed, Jeschke was sentenced to 1-year in Santa Barbara County Jail and 5-years probation. That decision being made, after community members and the victim’s family asked for leniency. Judge Ochoa also ruled that Jeschke is not to have any contact with males or females under the age of 18. The 34-year-old former coach, will return to court on Wednesday to set a preliminary hearing date to face additional charges of witness intimidation. If convicted of these charges, he could be sentenced to several years in prison.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s