There is nothing funny about the Quaids sitiuation in Santa Barbara

So just last Friday I was out having dinner with a friend from out of town. I mentioned to him that my work is much harder now since it requires greater research than when I first started. My earlier postings were more of an observation type and actually quite easy to compose. Once I understood the law or procedures as they applied to a given situation I could apply that knowledge to other cases with similar components. An guess what that is exactly what I am about to do in regards to the recent actor Randy Quaid's arrest. Now I did go on line to review public comments on a local news agency’s internet web page to take a pulse on how people felt. To be honest everyone just seemed to be making fun of the Quiads and no one had the same concerns as me. This of course is not the first time my views are different than the general public but here goes anyway,
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=39362
“Randy Quaid was handcuffed without incident, but deputies where forced to restrain Evi Quaid who physically resisted arrest. Randall Rudy Quaid (DOB 10/1/50) and Evegenia Helena Quaid (8/2/63) were booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail after 9pm Saturday (9/18/10) for felony residential burglary (459PC) and misdemeanor entering a non-commercial building without consent (602.5 PC). Evi Quaid was also booked for misdemeanor resisting arrest (148PC). Bail is set at $50,000 each.”

The above story estimated damage to be 5,000 dollars while the Santa Barbara News press claimed the damage to be 10,000 dollars. So lets move forward to what is now being claimed in the Santa Barbara News press, It seems the Quaid's are possibly scheduled for Santa Barbara Superior Court October 18th after both bailed out early Sunday morning. Except there are a few problems with that story. It seems that the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office as of Monday afternoon did not have an investigation report from the arresting law enforcement agency and there for had not decided that charges could even be filed. The story also went on to claim how the arrest now appeared to be misdemeanors and not felonies. How can the Quaid's even have a future October 18th court appointment when no charges have been filed? We know there has been no arraignment of the Quaid's since charges have not been filed. It makes no sense if you are aware of court procedures following an arrest. No arraignment but you have a future maybe court appearance. Oh thats right if you review a portion of my blog below regarding the Quaid's appearance last December there felony appearance's than were going to be “VOLUNTARY”.

Now please keep in mind this is the Quaid's fourth non appearance and a felony warrant had finally been issued. “Right now technically they’re Fugitives AGAIN” said Senior Deputy District Attorney Lee Carter. Now even if I tried I could not make Judge Anderson sound any dumber than he did in the quotes in the paper today.” Although the original three or four appearances were going to be voluntary we ended up with no appearances” Said Judge Anderson.
http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/12/santa-barbara-superor-court-corruption.html.
People there is no such thing as a Voluntary Felony appearance, all persons charged with a felony must be present in person at every required court appearance that is the law!

Since I am reviewing the Court lets see what else has been piling up on my desk waiting to be reviewed. That recent 'Gang case with 4 defendants that ended up with a hung jury had a secret. For some reason I have yet to figure out there was actually two trials going on at the same time against Mr. Mize and only 1 case against the other 3 defendants. What I don't understand is why the media, the Judge, and more importantly the Santa Barbara District attorneys office did not make this public knowledge from the outset. Maybe I missed the story but I could have sworn I wrote a recap from the outset of that trial and I missed there being two trials in one. I just find this odd because now it appears the other 3 defendants no longer wish to have there trials mixed with Mr. Mize's and have filed a motion to separate themselves from him. But two trials at once was ok.

Now because of the huge media attention a 14 year old being being charged for murder in Ventura has received they have actually drawn there jury from Santa Barbara to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial. I wonder if the three defendants from above would like a jury from outside of Santa Barbara as well? What about the Henry’s beach preliminary hearing and all that alleged “Gang” activity that started the whole indecent? As it turns out the victim and a friend actually started the confrontation that resulted in the first fight by cornering Mr. Gallegos. The military trained victim was able to take down the alleged “Gang' member and I guess beat him in a fair fight. The defeated “ Gang' member than got up and shook hands with the victim. How in the world was this person first arrested for the murder based on that account? You see Josh Lynn you take your medicine and than act like a man and congratulate or acknowledge the victor with class and dignity. Josh you could learn something from this alleged Gang member. I understand the person was later killed by a cowardly act and my prayers go out to his family and friends but the confrontation was over cigarette butts on the ground! The second person to be arrested for the murder has never been identified and yet held over for trial, thank you Judge Brian Hill. If they made a mistake in the first arrest how can we be sure there is not two mistakes?

Now mind you in order for Judge Hill to be part of this preliminary hearing for a defendant not yet bound over for trial he had to push two murder trails back. The Lyons double murder and the trail for the coward that murdered my friends daughter have both been pushed back. Even though both trials had already been set for July since last April.

What about the recent marijuana dispensary preliminary hearing. Well as it turns out the Santa Barbara district attorney's office won the preliminary hearing but has decided to wait for the people of California to vote on Marijuana in November before deciding what to do. Only problem is that the D.A. must file a felony information (new charges) in Superior Trial court within 15 days after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing as we learned in the Ricardo Juarez case. Wait there is more wrong with the Marijuana case. It seems that assistant Santa Barbara District Attorney Brian Cota admitted in the recent media story I read. That if 3 of the 4 co defendants were to take the stand in a trial they would be found not guilty. So why charge them in the first place? Now this was only a preliminary hearing but why did the main defendant take the stand in a case that may not ever hit a court room after the November election? Any defense attorney worth his salt would never have allowed that.

Yes we could all sit back and make fun of the Quaid's and there new situation. Or we could could begin to realize that every law and procedure matter. The fact that no one has come forward to agree or challenge my findings in regards to the SBCERS pension fund has me flustered. When are we going to get off of being stuck on stupid? There is nothing funny about any of it.

So when does Judge Hill rule on the Lyons whisper tape? After all he allowed the Juarez whisper tape.
When does public defender Karen Adkins missing 60 page motion filed 12/07 alleging misconduct by Judge Hill and the District Attorneys office turn up? I have checked the court house files and the motion has gone missing. When do alleged gang defendants have pre-sentencing probation reports put in there case files as required by law?
By the way in the nun scammer case that is coming up. Was Judge Anderson allowed to give testimony? The alleged couple or victims in the nun scammer could not agree if the were victims or not. The wife came forward and claimed not to be a victim. Judge Anderson than gave testimony by way of public statement and said” The wife would say anything to clear her friend' . Did Judge Anderson have to be sworn in to make that statement?

In all my court case's as well as most personal issues these last 5 years I took every shitty deal or offer put before me. Only to have that rubbed in my face and the terms altered. Nothing about any of this is funny.