As I promised here is the second part to Saturday’s posting, and a part three is now needed. Before I pick up where I left off I would like to review for just a moment why I take the time to write. In 2006 I was falsely put through our Criminal Court system and at one point faced 7 strike-able charges. Prior to 2006 I had no criminal record but according to my charges this was an isolated 8 month criminal rampage. I was even being told by my public defender Karen Adkins that I would likely serve two life sentences for the charges and she felt there was nothing she could do for me. To make matters worse my own family was blaming me and I was told that I had brought this on myself. Not a single family member took the time to help me or understand the whole situation. Truth be told I was not the one breaking any laws but what a mess.
Why the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office and their prosecutors Mary Barron and Greg Boller or Superior Court Judge Brian Hill played along is beyond me. So after being held in jail without legal cause for almost three months, I saw no other out but to take some type of Unconstitutional deal. All 7 strike-able charges were dropped. I accepted a three-year suspended felony prison sentence for what was ONLY a misdemeanor charge. After all that I started to look into other cases that seemed similar to mine. At first I focused on cases that Superior Court Judge Brian Hill or Karen Adkins had involvement with and all of the D.A.’s actions. I began to see a pattern of wide-spread corruption and abuses in our Criminal Courts. Not only by them but others who were also sworn to uphold the Law. Since then my research has grown and now includes Civil Court, illegal Real Estate Foreclosures and yes the Santa Barbara County Pension Fund Crisis (SBCERS).
Based on those personal experiences and my research I cannot understand why so many Americans are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to whomever or whatever. To give somebody the benefit of the doubt: is to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either. Or a favorable judgment granted in the absence of viewing full evidence. Wall Street needs to be held accountable, Pension Funds, Mortgage Companies and Law Enforcement all need to be held accountable. Just as they hold us accountable through their actions.
How can we have a City Council race that does not address the current cloud hanging over the Santa Barbara Police Department? The way things stand now what type of message does that send to those who we are trying to work with? We have no problem labeling our youth as criminals yet stay silent on the many cases that are currently open involving both current and past members of our police force. What about the police chief who starts the gang injunction process, while he secretly was interviewing for another job in San Bernardino.
As time passed I also noticed how bias the local media could be and the lack of any kind of journalistic integrity with what they covered.Take the meeting held by the Milpas Community Association last May. On their flyer the listed the topics to be covered and Gangs was one of five subjects. Take a look at their advertisement and how KEYT News covered it
Now first off the people who I spoke with that attended the Milpas Communitty Association meeting felt that KEYT’s coverage was not accurate and that their report did not reflect the meeting at all.
Which is why the coverage or lack of by the Santa Barbara News Press and Daily Sound, on the City Council forum held last Monday at the Casa bothers me. Why would the following question not appear in their coverage? I was able to have the ten Candidates for City Council asked;
A. Do you feel a Gang Injunction is necessary?
B. Do you feel that it was right for City Council to move forward without holding any public forums?
In my opinion the question and answers were not included because many of the candidates no longer support the Gang Injunction for a variety of reasons. Yes there was some support but in my view the majority no longer felt that was the answer with the “Gang Issue”
The mediator for that forum is a member of the Fund for Santa Barbara and I was aware of the fact that they themselves had some serious concerns with the originally purposed Gang Injunction. The Fund for Santa Barbara is a nonprofit Community Foundation. That supports grassroots organizations working for Social, Economic, Environmental and Political change here in Santa Barbara County. In a letter dated June 23rd 2011 and addressed to Mayor Schneider and Members of City Council their concerns.
“The proposed Injunction raises significant due process issues. Specifically it is not clear how individuals allegedly subject to the injunction have been identified.” You may see the entire correspondence at the link below
The Fund for Santa Barbara Board of Directors took their
concerns to the next level by providing supporting documentation
against the present wording of Santa Barbara's attempt at a Gang
Injunction. I do not feel they oppose the idea of an injunction. To
me it just seems they oppose an Unconstitutional attempt
at a gang injunction just like me!
In 2000 Prop 21 (‘Juvenile Crime Initiative) was before the Voters of California. The county council reviewed the proposition and made the recommendation to oppose supporting it. They feared abuse was possible with the labeling with 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’; So now any misdemeanor under the Gang Cloud is being documented as a Felony. So how accurate is the Gang crime data?
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’; At its January 20, 2000 meeting the Human Relations Commission voted to oppose Proposition 21, by a vote of 8-3. 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. 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’;
During this past summer I received some very positive feedback and encouragement everywhere I went. One person who teaches at a local High School had a really neat observation about my writing. She shared with me that what impresses her most about my work is my unique analysis on a given subject. She went on to add that many times my postings can be superior to that of our local media on the same subject.
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!