Sunday, November 7, 2010

Another person wants to help me understand why convicted sex offender Peter Jeschkes second trial has been delayed. Thus he is able to possibly avoid serving his suspended prison sentence.

I received an offer from a Santa Barbara attorney yesterday via email to help me understand the conviction terms of registered sex offender Peter Jeschke. Here is what was sent to me.

"Larry: I think you have some mistakes about recent legal matters. I would be glad to answer legal questions you may have. On Jeschke: the specific sex offenses on which he was convicted simply do not fall √ľnder Megan's Law. But they do require local police registration. The second trial will not change this. The new charges involve witness tampering. That will not change his registration obligations at all. Feel free to follow up with me any time.

Sent from my iPhone"

Here was my reply. I must admit I have some confusion on this matter. In my eyes I am only supporting the words of both the prosecutor now district attorney and sentencing judge so why are people trying to oppose there wishes in clarifying my misunderstanding?

 Dear zxxx,

    First I would like to thank you for your concern and even your taking the time to reply to me. I am also very impressed that you have left the door open to whether or not you have even understood my concerns or the conviction in question correctly. I will sign up to review the case file at our court house an than request copy's. Once I have everything I need to sit down with a knowledgeable attorney, you I will send a request so I may take you up on your offer from yesterday's email. The only thing that I wish to add is this. Please remember regardless of the structure of Megan's Law if Mr. Jeschke is convicted in his second case and trial his suspended prison sentence should become active. Above and beyond anything else that is what bothers me. Mxxx xnxx I sat in jail for almost 3 months allegedly for a protection order violation that Judge Lodge never allowed an was never needed. I have reviewed many court files and never seen two files the same regardless of similar circumstances. Things have gone way to far and if the people abusing these requirements, standards , procedures or , laws just had just taken some pride or shown some professionalism in there work maybe they could have fooled me too. Here is what is in print in regards to what both the prosecutor and sentencing Superior Court Trial Judge Frank Ochoa said after one of Mr. Jeschke court appearances.
   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.”

  xcxc xxxx I feel as if I am actually supporting both quoted parties from above when I ask for the second trial and for a conviction to be concluded when I voice my concerns. An quite frankly I am puzzled as to how it can be viewed any other way! I will be working on posting some of my research an court documents that give me great concern in regards to other corruption in our Superior Court by those sworn to uphold the law. Keep on eye out for that too it should be interesting.


Larry "Magic" Mendoza

No comments: