The Santa Barbara Democratic Central Committee Oppose Gang Injunction Crime Stats Show Gang Activity Dropped This Year

The Bellwether of how “JUST” a people are is how well they care for their women. How well they care for their children, their elderly, their poor and needy. Is in fact how healthy their society is. Well going through some of my research this morning I found that antidote written down on a piece of paper. I wish who ever had given that to me had signed it. Some times I think many in our society whose responsibility it is to be “JUST” have failed to act within the guidelines of their duties.

Just, adjective;

1. Guided by truth, reasonjustice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. Done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. In keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
Are you all aware of the recent turn of events in regards the need and or want of a “Gang Injunction” here in Santa Barbara? Here is a recent Santa Barbara Independent headline;
Are you all aware of the recent turn of events in regards the need and or want of a “Gang Injunction” here in Santa Barbara? Here is a recent Santa Barbara Independent headline;
Are you all aware of the recent turn of events in regards the need and or want of a “Gang Injunction” here in Santa Barbara? Here is a recent Santa Barbara Independent headline;

“S.B. Dems Oppose Gang Injunction

Crime Stats Show Gang Activity Dropped This Year”
A link and the entire story can be found at the end of this posting. I just wish people could be honest about the whole Gang Injunction situation. Because truth be told the Santa Barbara Independent has released crime data since 2009 that has shown a Gang Injunction could never be justified by those numbers. In fact the only reason Gang Injunction talk came about was to save Santa Barbara police chief Cam Sanchez’s job. I feel he still needs to be FIRED because he lacks any integrity and has no true leadership skills and that’s just for starters.
I have included some of my past postings where I challenged the exploitation of truly sad and unnecessary deaths for political power. Further on you will find some real “Gang Crime Data” all the way back to 2005. The Democratic Central Committee has to play politics not me, but ok we don’t need a Gang Injunction because of 2012 crime data (wink wink).
In closing a few weeks back I went for a ride first on the Eastside, then the Westside and finally the mesa and not only did I not see a “Gang Member” I never saw no youth out. Now my ride was taken on a Saturday evening after 8:30 pm, oh and I did end up having a beer on State street with some of the finer representatives of Santa Barbara law enforcement.( I mean that from the heart)
A public comment on the Gang Injunction;
The gang injunction was/is racist in motivation. This community like most has the ability to scapegoat without reflection. We do have systemic racial problems resulting phobic reactions. We elected council members, like Randy Rowse who while addressing another mesa gang, of really an all anglo crowd before him, praised them and actually flashed a 3-fingers down gang sign while saying “Go Mesa!” The flashing of Rowses peoples gang sign was not just an insensitivity but a provocation that no one seems to care about because they are part of the problem. Otherwise we should have been aghast. We’ve got a major malfunction going on here. The problem starts with our chamber of commerce type club members who use people, chews them up and then spits them out when they find they are of little use to them.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2012 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My challenge on crime states found in the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s presentation to the Board of Supervisors
When you read numbers given out about “Gang Issues/Crime” here in Santa Barbara more often than not a high percentage number is used rather than factual numbers. For example in last years 14 page District Attorney’s budget flyer (attached to this email) it immediately starts out on pg 3 under “highlights key trends”, with the statistic that Gang crime is up  by 1422% over the last ten years. In order to get some type of perspective on the raise in “Gang Crime” I looked at the right hand side of Page 3 and saw that the S.B.D.A.’s office handled a total of 14,633 felony cases in 1 year. Then I went to page 5 and saw were the D.A.’s office shows only 274 cases were classified as “Gang”, or in other words 0.0187 of 1% percent was “Gang related”. Now lets break that down even further and ask how many of the 274 case were from the City of Santa Barbara  and what portion of those cases came from Santa Maria and Lompoc . Let’s see 1422% vs. .0187 of 1 percent, 1422% does not seem to really reflect anything does it.
Crime data found in a 2009 Independent story that covers all the way back to 2005

Clouds Gathering Over Police Chief

Budget Showdown, Mayoral Face-Off Confront Cam Sanchez

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Santa Barbara Citywide Crime Stats

1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
HOMICIDE
7
6
6
3
0
3
RAPE
24
26
33
38
34
26
ROBBERY
75
132
107
58
76
117
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT*
139
467
436
371
399
347
AUTO THEFT
225
350
247
122
207
114
LARCENY/THEFT
1,740
3,052
2,614
1,953
2,125
1,912
ARSON
19
8
18
14
43
32

Gang-Related Offenses

2005
2006
2007
MURDER
0
0
2
ATTEMPTED MURDER
1
0
0
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
16
25
26
BRANDISHING
1
3
4
ROBBERY
5
3
6
BURGLARY
3
5
1
VANDALISM
30
37
37
BATTERY
5
12
13
KNIFE IN PUBLIC
3
7
8
TOTAL GANG RELATED OFFENSES
102
163
177
TOTAL CITYWIDE NUMBER OF OFFENSES
26,137
24,346
23,002
PERCENTAGE OF CRIME GANG-RELATED
00.39%
00.70%
00.77%
Last weeks Independents story.

S.B. Dems Oppose Gang Injunction

Crime Stats Show Gang Activity Dropped This Year

Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Democratic Central Committee voted overwhelmingly last week to oppose the gang injunction proposed last March by Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez. The vote came at the instigation of Latino rights activists affiliated with the new organizationPODER, who argued the injunction wasn’t warranted by existing crime rates and that the money spent on the injunction would be more effectively spent on prevention programs instead. Likewise, the groupa coalition of students affiliated with City College, UCSB, and Santa Barbara High Schoolargued the injunction would have a negative impact on property values in affected neighborhoods and further stigmatize Latino youth. “Let’s spend money on programs that help kids, not label them,” argued Cesar Trujillo.
About 17 members of the Democratic Central Committee (DCC) voted to oppose the injunction, a handful abstained, and a couple voted against taking action. Longtime Democratic Party activist Bob Handyand former Fire and Police Commission memberargued the committee should have heard from gang injunction supporters before voting. Committtee executive Daraka Larimore-Hall said the issues behind the gang injunction were hardly new, adding, “We’re a political party, not a debating society.” Larimore-Hall and other critics of the gang injunction expressed concern such a major policy direction was adopted without any public hearing by the Santa Barbara City Council.
To date, the City Council has reportedly not voted on the matter but has been briefed on several occasions in closed-door hearings. Councilmember Cathy Murillo, an opponent of the injunction, acknowledged she participated in one such meeting but declined to provide any details of what was saidand by whombecause of confidentiality concerns. While Murillo lauded the arguments made by PODER activists, she expressed skepticism the injunction could be reversed. “That train left the station,” she said.
Last week’s vote will cause further friction between the DCC and Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, a Democrat, who appeared at the press conference with Police Chief Sanchez when he first announced he would file civil legal action against 30 of the “worst of the worst” gang members, limiting their ability to associate with one another in public. Sanchez, who had opposed gang injunctions for years, switched positions just months after two high-profile homicides took place in 2010 in which non-gang members were killed by gang members.
Though not available for comment this week, Sanchez has taken issue with the argument that the injunction promotes ethnic profiling. The Latino community, he’s insisted, has been disproportionately victimized by gang activity. And though filed early last year, the gang injunction has been held up in a variety of court actions. At issue is whether proponents of the injunction can avail themselves to otherwise confidential juvenile records that prosecutors insist are needed to make the injunction’s case. A case management conference is scheduled this January. In the meantime, PODER intends to take its case to the Latino Democrats, the ACLU, and the Women’s Political Committee.
According to police records, gang incidents and gang-related crime dropped in the past year. Reports of “gang related” events dropped from 259 this time last year to 179 for the first 10 months of 2012. The number of “gang incidents”defined as offenses designed to further a street gangdropped from 153 to 118 in the same time. Only the number of taggings increased, from 734 to 956. Not all tagging, however, can be tied to gangs. According to FBI statistics on Type I crime, the number of violent offenses related to Santa Barbara gangs dropped from 34 to 28 in the past year and gang-related property crime from 15 to 10.
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

FREE for a Short Time on Amazon, Bob Burton’s Highly Acclaimed Thriller “QUIET OPS”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Santa Barbara’s own and my good friend Bob Burton’s highly acclaimed thriller QUIET OPS is FREE for a short time on Amazon. Give it a try, full of thrills, and laughs.

 Larry “Magic” Mendoza

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

After 39 months Ex-SBPD Officer Brian Sawicki Gets Only 10 Days in Lewd-Conduct Case. Did He Use his Police Computer to View Child Pornography, That Question Was Never Answered.

Since 2006 I have shared my many concerns with the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied when prosecuting their criminal cases. In regards to this case against former Santa Barbara police officer Brian Sawicki I just do not understand why it took almost 39 months to come to a conclusion. Are you aware that on average 83% of all California Superior Courts misdemeanor cases filed are concluded with in 120 days? Based on that data it took the Santa Barbara district attorneys office almost ten times longer than the rest of California, WHY?

That data below can be found on page 18 of this link @

(http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2012-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf

Criminal Cases. MISDEMEANORS: Case processing time for misdemeanors: 63% in 30 days, 79% in 90 days, and 83% in 120 days.)

Now I don’t want to beat this story to death but I just feel the public has been duped again because there were other serious issues besides his alleged lewd acts that seemed to have been pushed under the rug. The issue of whether or not Mr. Sawicki had used his police computer to view child pornography or who did was never answered. So if it was not former officer Sawicki who was it and what has happen to that officer? The fact that it is even possible for a law enforcement offer to watch child porn at work without some type of alert being forwarded to management really bothers me.

To make matters worse were you aware that the Santa BarbaraCounty sheriff’s sergeant charged with overseeing the Sawicki investigation has also been accused of viewing child pornography on his own computer. I wish I was kidding but I am not. Here is the link to the April 14th 2012 article I found @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47048702/ns/local_news-santa_maria_ca/t/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officers/  or you may go to Santa Maria Times @  (http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officer-s/article_8ceb886e-85f5-11e1-b0d0-0019bb2963f4.html

I have included the recent Noozhawk coverage of Mr. Sawicki’s conviction followed by the April 14th 2012 story in this posting. I ask that you take the time to view the reader’s comments at the end of the story because clearly I am not the only person upset with this whole fiasco.

In closing as always I ask that if you have found my posting relevant please share it with everyone that you can.

Sincerely

Larry Mendoza

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

@ http://www.noozhawk.com/noozhawk/article/ex-santa_barbara_cop_avoids_jail_time_in_lewd_conduct_case/

A former Santa Barbara police officer convicted of destroying evidence and resisting arrest in a lewd-conduct case was sentenced Friday to 10 days in jail. Brian Kenneth Sawicki also was fined $2,000 and placed on three years probation by Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Kay Kuns during the hearing in Santa Maria. Sawicki will be allowed to apply to the Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP), which involves being assigned to work sites throughout the county in lieu of spending time behind bars.

Last week, a Santa Maria jury returned a mixed verdict on charges stemming from a 2009 incident during which Sawicki, 36, allegedly exposed himself to two teenage girls — and engaged in unlawful electronic peeping —at Refugio State Beach. Sawicki was acquitted of three misdemeanor charges — annoying or molesting a child, lewd conduct in public, and unlawful electronic peeping. He was convicted of misdemeanor counts of destroying evidence and resisting arrest.

The case centered on the events of Aug. 10, 2009, when two 13-year-old girls told authorities they thought a man was following them along a trail on a secluded area of Refugio beach. They testified that they later saw him naked and masturbating on the beach as they approached. The girls alerted an on-duty state park ranger, who tried to approach Sawicki before he allegedly ran away. He was later caught and arrested. After hearing his sentence Friday, Sawicki sat emotionless, sporting a trial-long attitude that Kuns said had prompted her to choose the harsher end of punishment.

Sawicki, who resigned after his arrest, faced a maximum of two years in jail and $2,000 in fines for the two charges he was convicted of. Kuns sided with all of Deputy District Attorney Brook Gerard’s sentencing suggestions, even saying that she would’ve granted further punishment if the prosecution had asked for it. Kuns granted stay-away orders that stipulate Sawicki cannot have contact with the two teenage girls or their families. Sawicki must also stay away from RefugioBeach, and was ordered to turn over his stealth camera, digital camera and high-tech binoculars.

While Sawicki’s attorney, Michael Scott, conceded that Sawicki did delete an erotic video from his camera and ran from a park ranger, he said Sawicki has already been punished.

“This case had nothing to do with interest in underage girls,” Scott said. “He’s basically been on three years probation since this began. He’ll never work in law enforcement again. His savings are pretty much gone. “What did he do? He made a mistake. It was a three-minute pursuit; nobody was harmed. He lost a great deal because of his decision to not stop for the ranger.” Scott said Sawicki had no intention of contacting the girls, but he questioned whether he should have to turn over his electronic devices. Gerard countered that Sawicki was at a beach that park rangers testified is an area where families often go. “The defendant resigning his position is not a punishment,” she added. Kuns agreed, noting that she was also considering Sawicki’s actions in charges that he was acquitted of, as allowed by law. “The court finds that there were some aggravating circumstances,” Kuns said. “The notion and circumstance of the conduct in this case were disturbing to say the least. The conduct itself was disturbing.”

The judge also said she didn’t believe Sawicki’s testimony was completely truthful, and was upset by the fact that Sawicki so willingly evaded an officer. “I wasn’t very impressed with Mr. Sawicki’s attitude at times,” Kuns said. “Mr. Sawicki was a police officer. He was going up a hill with a backpack… He would’ve been gone. There was no change in his attitude… I think if Mr. Sawicki wants to sunbath, he’ll have to find a beach much further south or north.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47048702/ns/local_news-santa_maria_ca/t/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officers/  or you may go to Santa Maria Times @   http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officer-s/article_8ceb886e-85f5-11e1-b0d0-0019bb2963f4.html

Defense says child porn was not former Santa Barbara police officer Brian Sawicki’s.

Someone other than Brian Sawicki was using his computer to view teen pornography, his attorney contends, because dispatch records show Sawicki, then a Santa Barbara police officer, was out responding to service calls at the time. The records, which defense attorney Michael Scott, said recently surfaced, prompted Scott to file a motion asking Superior Court Judge Kay Kuns to reconsider a ruling denying the defense’s motion to exclude the pornography sites accessed on Sawicki’s computer from evidence.

Sawicki, 36, has been charged with five misdemeanors after he allegedly committed lewd acts in front of two teenage girls on Aug. 10, 2009 at RefugioStateBeach while he was off duty from the Santa Barbara Police Department.

On Friday, Kuns asked Scott during a hearing in Santa Maria to find out whether Sawicki was ever off duty and possibly home on occasions the teen pornography websites were visited on his desktop computer. Kuns then put off ruling on the defense’s motion until a later date.

The prosecution opposes the defense motion, and Deputy District Attorney Brooke Gerard argued in court Friday that Sawicki could have stopped at home during his work shift to visit the websites. “It wouldn’t be unheard of for the defendant, who lives in Santa Barbara, to go by his house,” she added

Scott countered that the person accessing the sites during Sawicki’s shifts spent hours browsing them under Sawicki’s screen name, and couldn’t have been Sawicki. Also addressed on Friday was another motion filed by Scott, this one sealed for privacy, asking Kuns to let the jury in Sawicki’s upcoming trial know that the sheriff’s sergeant charged with overseeing the Sawicki investigation has also been accused of viewing child pornography on his own computer. Kuns denied the defense motion on the grounds that the sergeant was not accused of tampering with the Sawicki investigation. “If he was a primary witness, this might be another story entirely,” the judge added.

That sergeant was not criminally charged, and his name has not been made public. According to Scott’s statements in court Friday, the person has since left the Sheriff’s Department  “under a cloud” of accusations. “This individual was very integral in this investigation,” the attorney added. Gerard argued before Kuns’ ruling that the sergeant in question had no time to interfere with the initial investigation at the scene of Sawicki’s alleged crimes on Aug. 10, 2009 before others arrived.

“As a sex crimes prosecutor, it makes me desperately sad to say there are hundreds of thousands of people out there looking at this kind of material,” Gerard said. Sawicki, who is free on bail, is charged with annoying or molesting a child, lewd conduct in a public place, unlawful electronic peeping, destroying evidence and resisting, and obstructing or delaying a peace officer. He no longer works for the Santa Barbara Police Department.

The countySheriff’s Department has reported that two teen girls were walking along a trail near the beach around 3:20 p.m. on Aug. 10, 2009  when they noticed a man walking behind them The girls walked back toward the campground, and saw the man lying down and masturbating, according to sheriff’s officials. They ran to the campground and alerted a state park ranger. While being interviewed, they saw the man and pointed him out to the ranger. Seeing the ranger approaching, Sawicki allegedly took off running. After a foot chase, he was caught and arrested.

Sawicki is due back in court on May 3, at which time motions in the case will be addressed. He is slated to start trial on May 30.

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/02/santa-barbara-district-attorney.html

Malicious Prosecution is a Common Practice by the Santa BarbaraCounty’s District Attorneys Office!

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Have you seen the Lawless America Movie “Nobody” Promo featuring me Larry Mendoza from Santa Barbara California?

Lawless America…The Movie began as a project, quickly became a mission, and now it is a MOVEMENT.

Have you seen the Lawless America Movie “Nobody” Promo featuring me Larry Mendoza from Santa Barbara California? You can view the promo @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltNJVtxNnSg

Actually the “Nobody” Promo is a format Bill Windsor used with many of the Americans he interviewed all across our Country. But what I was surprised to learn today is just how busy Bill Windsor has been not only creating the movie but placing his movie promos all across the Internet. I have placed just a few links at the end of this posting showing where you can find mine and other Lawless America The Movie Promos. Are you aware some how Bill Windsor in all his splendor has the Lawless America the Movie Promos tied into the Sundance Film Festival? Which you can view @ SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL VIDEOS

Now as some of you may already know I have been able to place two of my postings on the CNN News iReports web site, and I feel our Santa Barbara County and City Elected Officials might want to start paying closer attention to what they represent.The reason I say that is because the two subject matters I cover on CNN iReports were also included in my interview with Bill Windsor for the Lawless America Movie. Also over the past few week I received two letters from the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. The letters state that they will present my two concerns listed below before the whole jury. I have placed everything right before their eyes. Now the only question is will they believe what they are seeing? Here are the titles to my postings and their links so you may view them.

1-SBCERS Pension History of Economic Assumptions” VS. Actual Pension Fund Performance; covering 20 years 1988 through 2007. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-855440

2-Is there Election Fraud Being Committed by Some of Our Temporary Gubernatorial Appointees to the California Superior Court bench? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-857030

Some of you may be wondering what happens after the Lawless America Movie filming is completed later this year. Well Bill Windsor is not taking the Holidays off because he is planning an assault on our Nations Capitol January 9th 2013. Which by the way I am hoping to attend, any sponsors?

 “MEET ME IN DC — JANUARY 9, 2013: WE WILL HAND-DELIVER THE 35+ HOURS OF CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. There will also be a Congressional Educational Panel and an event where we will have all of us in an auditorium with seats on stage for those Congress people who show up. they will be on stage as the audience, and I will have microphones in the audience as we present to them. We will also be visiting The Washington Post en masses to ask why they aid and abet the corrupt judges and government officials. Plan to be there the 9th and 10th. Please click to RSVP.”
To find out the latest regarding visiting Washington D.C. please click on this link https://www.facebook.com/events/290562484387854/permalink/295149997262436/
Two more links to my “Nobody “movie Promo.
The latest CNN News iReports posting by me; Have you seen the Lawless America Movie “Nobody” Promo featuring me Larry Mendoza from Santa Barbara California? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-872260

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

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

As many of you already know I have been researching the history of Santa Barbara County’s reported SBCERS Pension Earnings and Values for well over two years now. And as I often do I unintentionally complicate my postings by supplying far too much data for everyone to consume. So after five months and with the help of a friend I think I am ready to wow you all with my representation of my pension findings and will do so by using just two documents and some simple math.

The first document (found at the end of this posting)I have for you today is titled “SBCERS History of Economic Assumptions” and covers 1981 through 2009. For my presentation I will be starting with 1988 and ending in 2007 which is 20 years of coverage. Really this document is a basic guideline of performance required to full fill all the pensions’ future obligations. So in an effort to keep things simple I averaged out each category over 20 years and here are the results.

                 SBCERS History of Economic Assumptions

1988-2007

A. The 20 Year Earnings Rate Assumptions Average for the pension was    8.15%

B. The 20 Year CPI Inflation Assumptions Average for the pension was      4.75%

C. The 20 Year Expected Real Rate of Return Average for the pension was 3.40%

Or A – B = C

Call me simple but I am assuming that if the pension met all 3 these assumptions created by our County leader’s then one could also expect that there would be no future pension value shortfalls. Unfortunately for us the Santa Barbara County Pension is currently reported to have a One Billion dollar deficit.

Now the second document (below after Doc 1) I have for your review today has already averaged out the pensions 20 years performance for us. We might call document 1 the before and document 2 the after.

 History of Actual SBCERS PensionPerfomance

1988-2007

A. The Actual 20 Year Earnings Rate Average for the Pension was             10.10%

B. The Actual 20 Year CPI Inflation Average for the Pension was                3.10%

C. The Actual 20 Year Real Rate of Return Averaged for the Pension was  7.00%

Or A – B = C

People I ask is it just me or did the pension actually exceed in spectacular fashion what our County leader’s had hoped for. Under A the actual 20 Year Earnings exceeded the assumption by almost 20% and under B the actual 20 Year CPI Inflation Average was almost 35% lower than the assumption. It gets better folks because of these two outstanding results our real net return was actually more than double the assumption of 3.40% and came in at a full 7.00%.

Dear Santa Barbara County Residents and County Employees how is it that our SBCERS pension netted more than twice the desired real net return. Had additional funds contributed over the same 20 years because of an alleged UN funded balance, and is still reported to have a 1 Billion dollar deficit? Now can you all understand why I have been saying for two years now it is mathematically impossible for the SBCERS pension to be anything but fully funded and with a rather large surplus.

Document 1

SBCERS History of Economic Assumptions
1988-2007
A. The 20 Year Earnings Rate Assumptions Average for the pension was 8.15%
B. The 20 Year CPI Inflation Assumptions Average for the pension was 4.75%
C. The 20 Year Expected Real Rate of Return Average for the pension was 3.40%
Or A – B = C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document Two below

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

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Lawless America, Larry Mendoza is One of the Stars of Lawless America, a Documentary Movie.‏

My time with Bill Windsor and Lawless America went better than I could have hoped for last week. 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.

 
We covered everything from my illegal 5150 hold, escape and beating to my B.S. divorce and 7 felony strike-able charges.I also included my take on the use of a ‘Ruse Affidavit’ by the Santa Maria Police Department and our Santa Barbara County D.A.’s office. I then talked about Santa Maria Police Officer Arthur Covarrubias shooting death and the contradictions about how he died. Of course the SBCERS pension was talked about as well as the two Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judges A. Garcia and G Eskin who failed to seek election to their first full term as mandated by our California Constitution. I closed by asking if I could uncover all these illegal acts with no support or assets of any kind. What could all the people that are both better educated and financially well off do if they just applied themselves.?
 
Bill asked me to create a couple of soundbites announcing the Lawless America Documentary, below is a link to one of them.
I promise more postings will be forth coming.
 
 
 
Larry “Magic”Mendoza
 
P.S. and of course the “Gang Injunction”

 

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

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

What do two former Santa Barbara Supervisors, past and current Santa Barbara Superior Court Judges and two current Candidates for the California State Senate all have in common?

While preparing for your visit Bill (LawlessAmerica.com)I did some additional research on our Superior Court and its Judges, what I found is nothing short of amazing. First I need to share a few facts about the Santa Barbara County Employees Pension System (SBCERS) and what I was able to discover.

My research shows that in 97 the Santa Barbara County Employees Pension System (SBCERS) values and funded levels had been retroactively reduced when compared to 1996. I uncovered this by comparing what had been previously reported to the State Controllers Office and the Bond Market on Wall Street. The years affected cover 1986-1996 and can be verified by comparing the County’s 2009 Employer-Employee Cost History against the archived pension audits I purchased from the California State Controllers Office.

I want to start this posting by looking at Mike Stoker who served as a Board of Supervisor for Santa Barbara County from 1986 through 1992. Then in 1994 California Secretary of State Bill Jones named Stoker Deputy Secretary of State where he served until January 2003 .Currently he is running against Hannah Beth Jackson for a seat on the California Senate. According to former Supervisor Mike Stoker, the deal public employees are getting (Pension) far exceeds the rest of the workforce, and it’s time for the county Board of Supervisors to level the playing field.

Mr. Stoker is far too modest because when he took his seat as a County Supervisor in 1986 the SBCERS pension was just fine and 102% funded. Someone should make Mr. Stoker aware that the original 1986 value of 102% has since been changed and is now being reported as only 67%.

As for Hannah Beth Jackson the other local candidate for the State Senate she just happens to be married to Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge George Eskin. That’s right the very same Judge who was one of two 2003 gubernatorial appointees who broke the law by failing to put himself on the 2004 June primary and win his first full 6 year term. So I ask is the wife of a Judge who has committed a crime under the color of law really our best answer for the State Senate?

Current Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Arthur Garcia is the other 2003 gubernatorial appointees who also failed to place himself on the 2004 June primary. When both Eskin and Garcia failed to retain their seats through election in 2004 and continued to occupy the bench. They both committed a crime under the color of law. In order for unlawful acts by any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, Judges, Mayors and Council persons, Law Enforcement, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Next we have Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Timothy J. Staffel. Who in 1992 was elected as Fourth District county Supervisor and represented the Santa Maria and Lompoc Valleys from 1993-1998. In June 1998, Governor Wilson then appointed him to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court. As I have already mentioned I uncovered conflicting values for the Santa Barbara County Employees Pension System (SBCERS) pension while he was a seating Supervisor. All I can say about his service is how can Superior Court Judge Staffel be oblivious to the fact that the pensions value and funded history had been retroactively altered on his watch. How can the public be sure his practice on the bench is any better?

Now we get to Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge James Herman who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in May 2005.and ran for election to his first full term in 2006 as per the States Constitution. Judge Herman’s wife Denise de Bellefeuille also happens to be a current Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge.

The Santa Barbara bench is a relatively small one having any where from 19 to 21 seats. In order for Judge Eskin and Judge Garcia to get away with the crime of not seeking election in 2004, it required the approval of Judge Herman who did run his wife Judge de Bellefeuille and the rest of the seating Superior Court Judges. It also appears Senate candidate Mike Stoker is just fine blaming the American worker for our alleged pension woes. Don’t forget that Judge Staffel was present as a supervisor while pension fraud was being committed against the Counties residents and workers.

In closing Bill I will have my data separated by issue and not by participant but I just felt the connections between corruption and those who seem to be involved are just to closely connected and need to be ousted.

Regards

Larry Mendoza

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

This was my original attempt at tonight’s posting.

I just wanted to send you a quick hello, and ask if you already know where we will be filming at. I have been preparing for your visit by checking my facts and getting all my documentation in order. You will of course be having some Tri Tip BBQ while you visit Santa Barbara. Because you have been inundated with so much data while filming, I will try to keep this simple. All month I have been preparing for our meeting double checking my data and re-assembling my documentation. –

 Bill I have uncovered archived audits from the California State Controllers Office from 1996 and 1997 that report conflicting values for the Santa Barbara County Employees Pension System (SBCERS) pension. I have all the data required to substantiate these claims but let me give you the simple example.

 Initially both the California State Controllers records and Wall Streets bond market showed that Santa Barbara County reported the pension was 102% funded with a value of over 225 million dollars. In 1996  the Controllers records reported the pensions actuarial value of assets was 587 million dollars and 92% funded.Below is a copy of the 1991 Controllers Audit that shows that the County had in fact reported the pension to be 102% funded on 12/31/86. This report also shows that as of 12/31/90 the pension was 89.2% funded.

So let me ask you all a simple question, if I started with a 102.% funded pension in 1986, do you think it would earn more than if I had started with just a 67%? Well some how just the opposite is true with the SBCERS Pension.I have just a few more important points to share with you that I hope shocks you.

The 1998 Controllers Audit below stated funded levels for 1990 and 1992 match the cost history sheet from above. But go to the top left side of this document and look under “Statement of Plan Net Assets as of June 30th 1998” and it reports the assets to be over 1Billion dollars.

Now look under “Summary of Funding Position” on the lower half of the page, were it shows the “Actuarial Value of Assets” to be almost 800,000 dollars as of 12/3198. How is it the pension was 25% greater net total net value in June, yet in December its Actuarial was only 800,000?

Also when I looked at one year earlier the “Statement of Plan Net Assets as of June 30th 1997” reports the assets to be over 888,876,118. The “Summary of Funding Position” again on the lower half of the document, shows the “Actuarial Value of Assets” to only be 693,399,597 on 12/3197. Once again the pension had a 25% greater net value in June than in what Decembers Actuarial showed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments