Sunday, June 13, 2010

Corruption in the Santa Barbara Superior Courts, you be the Judge! We must do better and be "JUST'

A follow up from yesterday's posting.
As I have done many times in the past I share information with you from a first glance and almost miss so much more than I originally thought. In my posting yesterday I was following up with a statement made during the Santa Barbara District attorney race by the eventual winner Joyce Dudley. The term ‘JUST” in reference to all aspects of the Law was well covered but something kept bothering me. I had failed to refer by name a Fraud case used in the posting. I referenced circumstances from the case and that was just not proper of me. The guilty party in that case I named “Michael L. Wilson”, and below is just a portion of what was found on the Internet.
Biz Buzz: Plea bargain could get Santa Maria hard-money lender Mike Wilson at least 10 years
“He has also been given an incentive to repay his investors for their losses. If he can repay investors $1 million to $2 million of what they’ve collectively lost, the district attorney will reduce Wilson’s sentence by five or 10 years, depending on how much he collects. At a minimum, Wilson will serve 10 years and four months”.
Please read the story in it’s entirety at the bottom of this posting, included is the web page from the San Luis Obispo news press where it originated.
There is so much wrong here where does one begin? I will start with the length of time from charges to obtaining a conviction, 80 whole days. Why I bet the investigation had to take longer than that since it resulted in 147 felony charges? Hell we have people in jail for killing 3 people wait 2 years just for a preliminary hearing but more on that in just a moment. I am still a bit confused I must admit. How does a person get investigated by 2 State agencies; D.R.E. the Attorney General and 1 District Attorney’s office and not uncover ever aspect of this man’s assets and those he allegedly stole? Now if what I read was indeed offered to Mr. Wilson would he not have to bring with the cash bribe a paper trail? Again at second glance I almost thought this might be a trick played on the defendant in order for him to expose the other non found assets. As you may well know this county is getting a bit of a reputation for filing perjury charges in regards to assets or signed statements they consider to contain or have committed perjury. Although to date that area of expertise tends to remain under the umbrella of D.M.V..
Which brings me smack dab in the middle of the Lyons ‘DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL’ and the Honorable Judge Brian Hill. As luck would have it Mr. Lyons gave a lower value on purchase of a motor bike, he stated 1500.00 when according to our diligent District Attorneys office the value was closer to 5000.00. Talk about shooting fish in barrel can I guess that EVERY ONE that reads this may also be guilty of that same crime? Let’s see life in prison + 1 way to go!
Oh wait a ‘Double Murder” and no press, that’s right you need a American/Mexican sir name for un-just media coverage. Now the Lyons “DOUBLE MURDER” has a special interest to this community in regards to whether or not Judge Hill allows the County’s second “Whisper Tape” and the alleged secretly taped confession. In the framing of 14 year old Ricardo Juarez the 1st “Whisper Tape’ and secret confession was allowed during his trial by the same Honorable Judge Brian Hill. Yet to date he has not stated if he will allow the prosecutor to use the “2cnd Whisper Tape” during the Lyons trial. Again with no press coverage and with the low quality of what might hit print one can never be sure of the on goings of any trial here in Santa Barbara. Take for example during the preliminary hearing of framed defendant Ricardo Juarez of murder he did not commit a document was in the court files that clearly indicates the district Attorneys office was aware he was the wrong defendant. I possess this document and would be glad to forward it to any one who might request it.
Now let’s quickly get back to the preliminary hearing that has taken two years for triple murder. “The man accused of killing his father and 3 other( that’s 4 not 3) men in a Santa Maria junk yard two years ago is a paranoid schizophrenic who has psychotic delusional thoughts and could not adequately help his attorneys in his defense, according to two defense witnesses during testimony Monday”. That is the first paragraph reported in the Santa Barbara News Press 06/08/2010. This whole situation bothers me on so many level’s but the real question is must we go beyond the first paragraph to realize he is in the wrong type of Court?

Below is the location for a P.D.F. copy of what is allegedly the original criminal charges filed by the Santa Barbara District Attorney against Michael L. Wilson. Even though this document may appear correct I have a few reservations about it. Under DA No. 09-07-225191 on the right had upper side of this complaint Court No. is left blank. That would be where they County clerk would put a Santa Barbara Superior Court case number. Also below the case number would come the Court Stamp, Gary Blair’s stamped name and the deputy clerk name, all missing.

The above complaint is 44 total pages.
147 Counts times 2 years = 294 year than add at least 1 year per special allegation and we have almost 450 years possible if convicted and sentenced lightly. 2800.oo that my have had an escrow violation at best. Yet Denise D’Sant Angelo was sentenced to two years in a jury trial, I wonder what the jury picked as her sentence?
As for David Abraham I found this update on the CL under Rants and Raves for Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara Just System - David Abraham (Crime Does Pay)
Date: 2010-06-12, 7:46PM PDT
Reply To This Post

To the gentleman who correctly wrote that we need a "just" system, you stated David Abraham received 90 days in jail. You are incorrect in your statement.
HE SERVED NOT ONE DAY IN JAIL! Imagine that?!?! Steal $2.1 million and you walk. He was allowed to remain in the comfort of his beautiful home
which he fixed up with the elderly victims' money. All he had to do was were a tracking device. How wonderful...he was allowed out to shop, pay bills, etc.

So tell me about our just system. The judge allowed this crap ass crook to buy off a PRISON sentence.

Let me ask D.A. Joyce Dudley: Would you risk stealing $2.1 million (send $1m to an off shore account where it remains today) and risk being caught only to
be punished by wearing some accessory which tracks your wonderings of beautiful SB? (This is a rhetorical question!).

Signed: Just Me!

Penalties, Punishment, and Sentencing for Grand Theft under California Penal Code 487
California Penal Code 487 PC "grand theft" is a "wobbler". This means that depending on (1) the circumstances of your case, and (2) your criminal history, the charge may be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
If you are convicted of grand theft as a misdemeanor, you face up to one year in a county jail. If you are convicted of grand theft as a felony, you face 16 months, or two or three years in the California State Prison.
It should be noted that "grand theft firearm" will always be charged as a felony and will additionally count as a "strike" on your record.
• Enhancements
In addition to the penalties noted above, you can receive an additional and consecutive state prison sentence for any of the following7:
• One year if the amount of the property was worth more than $65,000

• Two years if the amount was worth more than $200,000

News Story from San Luis Obispo news press!
Biz Buzz: Plea bargain could get Santa Maria hard-money lender Mike Wilson at least 10 years

Mike L. Wilson of Santa Maria is expected to plead guilty to grand theft
A plea bargain is expected today in the criminal mortgage fraud case of Santa Maria hard-money lender Mike L. Wilson, according to Jerry Lulejian, the Santa Barbara County deputy district attorney prosecuting the case.
Wilson, who operated the now-closed Pacific Coast Mortgage, was arrested July 10 on suspicion of grand theft, forgery of real estate deeds, misrepresentations in the sale of securities and elder abuse by embezzlement. Some of his alleged victims live in San Luis Obispo County.
Wilson was facing a maximum sentence of 50 years or more.
In his deal with the state, Wilson, 55, will plead guilty to one count of grand theft for each of the approximately 45 victims named in the case, including his mother and father and many friends.
He has also been given an incentive to repay his investors for their losses. If he can repay investors $1 million to $2 million of what they’ve collectively lost, the district attorney will reduce Wilson’s sentence by five or 10 years, depending on how much he collects. At a minimum, Wilson will serve 10 years and four months, Lulejian added.
Wilson also has to liquidate his personal assets and make a concerted effort to correct the real estate deeds of trust that he failed to record properly, in order to repay investors for their losses, the deputy district attorney said.
Wilson’s arrest last July followed the filing of at least seven lawsuits against him in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Those suits, which will proceed, mirror the criminal complaints alleging losses of more than $5 million that were supposed to go toward commercial and residential investments in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties.
Wilson first made headlines at the end of February, when he had to be rescued by the Coast Guard after falling from his boat into the deep chilly waters of the Santa Barbara Channel. Wilson said a wave had knocked him overboard.
One of the investors suing Wilson, Sandee Ogilvie, said Wednesday that she thinks even a 20-year sentence for Wilson is too light, given the damage he has done to those who entrusted him with their money, some of whom were elderly and gave Wilson all of their savings. But, given what she believes would be a “huge expense” in taking the Wilson case to trial, Ogilvie said, “I think this is an acceptable resolution.”
— Melanie Cleveland

Read more:

In closing of this extremely lengthy posting I wish to review 1 more sentencing from our Santa Barbara District Attorneys office. A defendant was recently found guilty of Voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years in prison. If the defendant had been found guilty of the higher crime of Murder the sentence may come back at only 25 years. He had a gun and was also charged with Gang enhancements, probably illegally.

I do not condone any crime and my deepest sorrows to the victim’s family and friends but our courts are not legal or “Just”. In fact we seam to be all over the place and lack the very consistency that is required by our society.
Having been called a defendant and almost sentenced to two life sentence’s now get this for “WORDS I NEVER SAID” you can see the fear one has regardless of act when being accused in Santa Barbara Superior Court, “ Just’ must be more than a campaign slogan I truly hope.

If you have the will to go one here is a little more data in regards to the charge of Voluntary Manslaughter.
Jury Instructions on Voluntary Manslaughter:
The defendant killed someone out of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion if:
1. The defendant was provoked;
2. As a result of the provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or judgment;
3. The provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgment.
Heat of passion does not require anger, rage, or any specific emotion. It can be any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act without due deliberation and reflection.
In order for heat of passion to reduce a murder to voluntary manslaughter in California, the defendant must have acted under the direct and immediate influence of provocation as it has been defined. While no specific type of provocation is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient. Sufficient provocation may occur over a short or long period of time.
It is not enough that the defendant simply was provoked. The defendant is not allowed to set up his own standard of conduct. The jury must decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether the provocation was sufficient. In deciding whether the provocation was sufficient, consider whether a person of average disposition would have been provoked and how such a person would react in the same situation knowing the same facts.

1 comment:

瓊文TamMcfee0520 said...