Below is my reply to an article that appeared in print by The Santa Barbara Daily Sound
Santa Barbara city leaders headed toward gang injunctions; residents, tourists debate the change in policy
Todays printed Daily Sound once again has Ricardo Juarez's image being abused. If you inspect the picture of Mr. Juarez that appeared in todays printed Daily Sound he is shown wearing both tennis shoes and handcuffs with gloves on. How odd is it that allegedly D.N.A. evidence would later be found on these items? Why did they Officer responsible for Mr. Juarez to be in hand cuffs fail to preserve evidence?
Gang-Related Offenses
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% 2006
00.70% 2007
00.77% 2008
California G-Gang Data Base. What is required to label someone a "Gang Member" Nothing Legal
What they never want challenged (Santa Barbara)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-04-27, 11:55PM PDT
Reply To This Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all the education and laws written is this really needed? I agree Gangs are an issue but when the labeling of children is permitted on a whim who has the right to have such power? We must be able to do better than this! I have so much respect for my Country but since when did we need such heavy handed tactics to deal with an inflated 800 youths. When you subtract the 20% who will have a criminal record that leaves you 600 kids who do not break the law but must be punished for those that do. These are there numbers not mind supplied here today.
I feel all crime should be treated at face value. But this is a tool used to create hell on children, by adults who just don't care.
California G-Gang Data Base. What is required to label someone a "Gang Member" Nothing Legal
All that it requires is them wanting to label you as a Gang Member. There is no procedure to challenge the alleged labeling either. We need to expose that it is against the Constitution in present form. In it's current form this data makes no reference to law and or have any criteria of education to be the person who certifies our youth as Gang Members. All it requires is that someone said (Law Enforcement or Private Citizen ) or makes the accusation against you and you are in the GANG data base. It derives no power from the law, penal code, saftey an welfare. It is a powerless document that our Santa Barbara District Attorney and Public Defenders must challenge. Even the California Prison system has a 3 step verification process to label any RACE a Gang member, at the very least we should have to legally and ethically follow those minimum procedures.
http://www.njjn.org/media/resources/public/resource_263.pdf
Criteria used by California law enforcement to Shackle our youth can be found at the link above..
This and other information may be found at Larry "Magic" Mendoza's blog
www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Just real quick to follow up on Judge Hill's act in the "COREY' Lyons Mistrial. If the concern was over what Corey Lynn's sister had said to her other brother, and Judge Hill had already made two rulings to the HEAR SAY evidence. Than why did they simply not add Corey Lynn's sister to the witness list and allow her to confirm or deny her other brothers testimony?
Now Back to Ricardo Juarez and let me share with you a condition of the Court for a Capitol Charge. Transcripts must be produced and filed as a daily requirement in a Murder Trial. So if these documents are to be readily available by Court Reporter Sharon Reinhold why was there 15 request on her part for an extension of time to produce records for the Court of appeals on behalf of Ricardo Juarez? I just wonder why if the Santa Barbara District Attorneys case was so solid against Mr. Juarez why the continuing effort to cover the FRAMING of RICARDO JUAREZ? In my illegal case Court Reporter Sharon Reinhold claims to have lost my felony sentencing transcripts all together. During the Jesse James Hollywood Trial Sharon Reinhold was emailing the victims Mom and this was brought to Judge Brian Hill's attention. Yet no Mistrial was declared, why is that? Sharon Reinhold has also been sued in Civil Court for falsifying transcripts in 2000. I receive emails with updates by the Court of Appeals and todays update show's that the defense actually needed to file this motion below,
| Application filed to: | for permission to file respondent's brief in excess of word limit (28,557 total words) |
And that permission was granted. I can go on line to pull that motion and will do so when time permits. I wonder why the need for such a lengthy response on Mr. Juarez's behalf?
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1387709
| 04/10/2009 | Received copy of document filed in trial court. | Certified Copy of Affidavit of Court Report for Extension of time to file The Record on Appeal to 5/05/09 dated 4/06/09 |
| 05/07/2010 | Granted - extension of time. | **NO FURTHER** |
| 10/07/2010 | Application filed to: | for permission to file respondent's brief in excess of word limit (28,557 total words) |
| 10/07/2010 | Received: | Respondent's Brief (oversized) (**need permission to file**) |
| 10/07/2010 | Respondent's brief. | Plaintiff and Respondent: The People (permission - oversized - 28,557 total words) |
| 11/03/2010 | Requested - extension of time | |
| 11/04/2010 | Granted - extension of time. | |
| 11/30/2010 | Modified criminal address. | per arb, aplt now at OHC instead of Norwalk Reception |
| 11/30/2010 | Appellant's reply brief. | Defendant and Appellant: Juarez, Ricardo **8.25** |
| 11/30/2010 | Case fully briefed. | |
| 03/10/2011 | Calendar notice sent. Calendar date: | 4-14-11 @ 1:30 pm |
No comments:
Post a Comment