Our California State Controllers Office labels my funding concerns with the SBCERS pension as IMPORTANT!

I want you all to know that this month has provided me with more personal satisfaction than ever before and I just want to thank you all.

This month has included some new experiences for me. The biggest of these was when the California State Controllers Office responded to an email I sent them. What I had done was to forward a posting that dealt with the questionable reporting practices by both Santa Barbara County and their Retirement Board. I asked my contact at the Controllers office if there was anyone they felt might be able to help me with my concerns. I doubt 24 hours had passed before I started to receive phone calls from their office.

Initially responding Deputy Controller Terrence McGuire gave me the impression that he was serious about investigating my concerns. He shared with me what the process was going to be and even asked me to supply him with some additional supporting documentation. After he concluded his review he stated he would than check with the Controllers legal department and we would go from there.

As a week than ten days passed I saw a change in his efforts. From one that had started with a let me see what we can do. To one that stated there was nothing to address. Of course I was not satisfied with this.

As usual I am able to use information created by others to prove my point. In this case it is the emails passed around by the Controllers office in their attempt to explain my (Importance: High) concerns away, so lets review them.

Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:10 PM
To: several people Subject: Retirement Publication Question

 I’ve got a question on our retirement publication – and specifically about the Santa Barbara County System.  Apparently, past year amounts for actuarial accrued liability and the actuarial value of assets changes in reports issued for subsequent years.  (The years I’m looking at are from 1988 – 1996.)  Can you refer me to someone who can provide an explanation or some background?

 Thanks xxxxx

Next email;

From: xxxxSent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:01 PM
To: several people

Subject: FW: Retirement Publication Question
Importance: High

 Hi xxxxx

 The change between years you are seeing is a result of GASB Statement #25.

 As stated in our 1996-97 publication on page xxxvi:

 Due to the new actuarial method requirements in GASB Statement No. 25, the information in detail sections for the Summary for Funding Position is different as compared to the 1995-96 Public Retirement Systems Annual Report for most of the public retirement systems.”

 GASB Statement #25 – Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans (Issued 11/94)

 This Statement establishes financial reporting standards for defined benefit pension plans and for the notes to the financial statements of defined contribution plans of state and local government entities.  Financial reports for post employment healthcare plans administered by defined benefit pension plans and for the pension expenditures/expenses of employers are included….

 It goes on to say: “The provisions of this Statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 1996.” 

 Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.


Thanks

Bureau Chief, Local Government Policy and Reporting 
California State Controller's Office

Division of Accounting and Reporting

 Now this email cannot be the correct answer to my concerns because it fails to explain on of the main aspects of my complaint. How can a pension that was originally reported in 1986 to the Controllers Office as having a 225 million dollar value and 102% funded. Have that data altered ten years later and reduce the originally reported funded ratio by 32%? Not to mention the changed values between the 1995 and 96 audits.

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-documentation-concerning.html

More Documentation Concerning the Retroactive Change of Value to our SBCERS Pension Fund Between 1995-96 and 1996-97 Reports.

This posting will have data from 1986,and 88 as well as 1995and 96 in order to see the concerns in the proper time line. There we also be links so you can review complete yearly reports to verify my findings.

 Now here we have the Controllers office labeling that email as high importance and not only do they fail to satisfy me they fail to address the question at hand as observed in this last email.

 From: xxxxx

Sent: Fri 7/22/2011 2:02 PM

To: Terry McGuire

Subject: FW: Retirement Publication Question

 Terry, the following response should address the question of why there are differences in the two reports for SB.

 Thanks, John

 Hello even xxxx agrees that my concerns have not been correctly addressed. Now Terrence must not have been paying attention because he than emails me as if these emails verified his explanation.

 Subject: FW: Retirement Publication Question

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:13:38 -0700

From: TmcGuire To: sb_magic

 Please see emial below.   I will try to call you this afternoon.

 So after all that they also did not answered the second half of my original concern as well.

How can the SBCERS pension currently claim to be 1 BILLION DOLLARS UNDER FUNDED IF THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE CORRECT?

First that we started in 1986 with a pension that was 102% funded and with a value of 225 million dollars . Than this pension went on to average a 9.3% yearly net investment return for the next 24 years . All the while being consistently over funded by 30% for the same time period by the County. How can that be you ask? Well you see since the 9.3% return rate was more than a full percent higher than the desired assumption rate of 8.0. This would require the County of Santa Barbara to contribute at the minimal yearly combined rate of 12% and not the documented yearly average of 17%, The 17% represents a normal average rate rounded up to 12% for the 24 year time period. The additional yearly 5% comes from the alleged underfunded obligation for the same time span. Wait what ever happen to the 24 years of exceeded investment returns that the 9.3% yield produced? It is because of these types of contradictions that I went to the California State Controllers Office in the first place.

 So I challenge the current reported funding levels by whom ever wishes to present them. Since 1986 I can prove with County documentation that the SBCERS pension exceeded every bench mark set for it thus making it mathematically impossible to be anything but currently over funded.

 Inclosing the California Controllers Office was quick to respond to my correspondence, So why has every current Santa Barbara Board of Supervisor and Auditor-Controler Robert Geis failed to respond to any of them?

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

Santa Barbara's County pension fund out performs CalPers in 2011 by earning an outstanding 1 year return of 21.7% WOW. The best kept secret in Santa Barbara!

Santa Barbara's County pension fund out performs CalPers in 2011 by earning an outstanding 1 year return of 21.7% WOW. The best kept secret in Santa Barbara! 

Almost two weeks ago Sunday I saw a Santa Barbara News Press front page headline that read; “Taxpayers on hook for shortages in pension system. Growing benefits plus weak economy leave public pensions short.” You must remember that the headline blaming a week economy was used prior to last weeks announcement by CalPers. In their press release they showed that for the most recent one year, earnings were estimated to be at 20.7% WOW!

“ SACRAMENTO, CA – The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) today reported a 20.7 percent return on investments in preliminary estimates for the one-year period that ended June 30, 2011. “This is our best annual performance in 14 years,” said Rob Feckner, CalPERS Board President. “For the second straight fiscal year, the Pension Fund exceeded its long-term annualized earnings target of 7.75 percent.”The net-of-fees performance was the strongest since the 20.1 percent return of 1997 and the highest since the 2007-09 recession.”


As I have done in the past years I began to wonder where was the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems (SBCERS) estimated 1 year return announcement? I share this because I distinctly remember that last years announcement came months after CalPers. An as It turned out the SBCERS fund netted a return of 14.4 % for that year not to shabby I thought. So I performed some very minimal research today and you will not believe what I was able to find!

The SBCERS fund also had an outstanding year actually out performing the year CalPers had just experienced! Our SBCERS pension fund earned a whopping 21.7% a full  1% greater than that of  CalPers and yet not a peep from our local elected officials or the media. I wonder if the President is to blame for the poor turn around as well? I just put the main numbers for your review here but see them for yourself at the link below.


file:///Users/magicl/Ca%20Pension%20Data%201978-97/2011-07-27-005-INV-MonthlyPortfolioStatusReport.pdf


SBCERS

Tom Ford Interim Retirement Administrator Lila E. Deeds – Interim Chief Executive Officer

Date: July 27, 2011

Subject: Monthly Status Report Santa Barbara County Employees' Retirement System

Portfolio Status Report (Performance Net of Fees)

Period Ending June 30, 2011 

Total Fund Fiscal YTD Comparison

Market Value June 30, 2010 Market Value June 30, 2011 Total Fund

…..................1,610,604,092 ….............1,960,492,477

Change in Market Value% YTD Change Market Value%

…...............+ 349,888,385 ….........21.72%  


This means that over the last two years our County pension has earned over half a billion dollars. So is a weak economy hurting our pension funds?

Often my concerns come from simple observations that just don't seem to make sense to me so I leave you with this. No matter who's California pension audit I review the yearly benefits paid out almost always match’s the normal yearly contributions paid in. Over 70 years is that mathematically possible? I will get back to that in the future.



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

www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

Further Concerns about Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen K. Sterne. Seems others have faced her Unjust Rulings in Family Court

"Mr. Mendoza:

In the hope that you are for real, I ran across your blog about Santa Barbara. I urge you to read the attached briefs. Judge Sterne was literally and without exaggeration, kept in hiding as the result of misconduct. Feel free to contact me. My name is Richard xxxxxx. I know the media wants this

Dear Media and selected Persons I am very intrigued by Mr. xxxxxx's attached documents and how they relate to me. S.B.C.C.C. Blog was born out of similar abuses that I  faced during my divorce. Events like illegally manufactured criminal charges which was than followed by malicious prosecution from the District Attorney. I had to also face the lack of any real representation by my own attorney paid for by me. The abuses that many face here in Santa Barbara must be stopped! Only by all of us sharing our experiences can we attempt to regain control of our legal system and seek that all actions are just as required by our Laws and Constitution's. To this day I only seek one thing from my divorce,"That it meet all the requirements of the laws and rules that govern it thus making it a legal one.

Based on the recent success that Mr. xxxxxxx has shared with me here I may just have my day in court sooner than anyone might think. You see as you can tell by my examples anyone can research and find examples of unjust rulings, convictions, settlements you name it. What I have yet to experience is the creating of lasting change. 

 Do you know why I have so much success at exposing unjust events or situations as I do? It is such a simple answer. Because I get to stand on the same soap box as the District Attorney or a Superior Court Judge. The Law, it's that simple. it is not hidden from view it is just not practiced as written, nothing more nothing less.

Many times I stumble onto a great quote or example that helps me too make my point in my postings, and this past week was no different.

I caught the tail end of a documentary about our present economic situation  and it compared aspects of it  to the New Deal which was created after the Great Depression. I only want to share one thing with all of you that I took from this documentary. A quote often used by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. While creating the New Deal package The President  took meeting after meeting from a wide spectrum of people. Which of course included both the Republicans and Democrats as well as public organizations, unions Bankers, and Wall Street as well. Every meeting there would be a presentation of why their interest should be included in the final draft of the New Deal. As you might imagine our current President Obama must be going through a very similar situation right now.  The documentary went on to say how gracious the President was with everyone he met with but he left the final decision of what he would include up to them and he did this with a very simple set of instructions. "GO OUT AND MAKE ME DO IT".  An if you ask me that is politics in a nut shell. If we allow corruption to over take us than we have not done our job. All I am attempting to do with my writing is to make the powers that be act in the Proper, Just and Legal manner required of their hired or elected positions.

You see than like now we just let too much go on and on. And until we make a stand and force the actions we seek, no real change is ever coming.

So I may have only published 8 or 9 postings so far this month but I have worked on another 30. My work is far from being over.

Larry "Magic" Mendoza

Mr.Fred Butter's I disagree with your comments about the "Nun Scammer" case in part but Thank You for Sharing!

Mr. Butter's I disagree with your comments about the "Nun Scammer" case in part but Thank You for Sharing!
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:50:14 -0700

Fred Butters

you wrote.

“I reviewed the “Nun Scammer “court case and evidence. Based on my back ground with Real Estate and the fact the money had been returned.”
Great, you reviewed it and you have a background in Real Estate. So? When you used your knowledge from your Real Estate background while reviewing legal documents (no, I get it. That qualifies you to be an expert in our legal system) did you miss the part where she did NOT return the money given to her for an “investment” because she used it to pay her rent? Must have also skipped over the part where she charged an elderly couple $30,000 to “collect documents” that she claims to have in some infinite storage space in Goleta – one that’s so large she can’t find “several boxes” full of documents after years of searching, and for some reason can’t find that money you claim she returned.
“The juror was eventually reprimanded and discharged. This alone is grounds for a mistrial.”
That’s not grounds for a mistrial. This is one reason why our courts have alternate jurors.
By the way, that font is way too big.


My Response

Mr. Butters
I can show you exactly who had control of the 2500 dollars, would you like to see?
With your expertise would you like to view the the legal documents I have obtained actually show that the alleged victim in Denise's second case show he actually had control of the 2500 dollars in question.   He claimed control of the funds with his bankruptcy paper work, which I have a full copy's of. Further more in the second case the alleged victim had filed for bankruptcy and stated his intention was to give the property back months before the alleged crime occurred.. This of course happen after several cash out refinances and by than the house was upside down before he lost it. It is my understanding that when the defendant was asked on the stand where the hundreds of thousands of dollars that was pulled via refinances went he had no idea. Oh one more thing, at least 6 months before anyone can file for Bankruptcy they must attend credit counseling and try to work out there debt. So why the need for Denise's service?

Let us not forget the victims wife claimed she and her husband had not been cheated by D'Sant Angelo but Judge Anderson testified on the stand and basically calls the victims wife a liar, it is part of the news press coverage. I never challenged the second trial I simply shared a friend of Denise's letter to a reporter. The second case was a civil matter at best! My observations pale in comparison to the allegations made by Mr. Lance against the Santa Barbara police and the D.U.I. officer in question.  Except for I do agree with you about the font being to big, thank you for that observation.

  In closing any time you want to compare my local criminal rap sheet vs. that which was reported to the United States Department of Justice, I will gladly sit down with you. Before my divorce I had never been arrested. After my alleged brief criminal career I was told I would serve two life sentences.



"A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign, has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant is accorded procedural justice." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th35, 48.)

Six months before this happen
"Two main contributors,Eric Bjorkland and Kelsey O'Reilly to than hopeful candidate Josh Lynn for Santa Barbara Barbara District Attorney have been arrested. They two along with several others have been accused of being as Major Drug Traffickers!"
I was anonymously tipped that the above were indeed drug dealers and reported it on my blog, Law Enforcement gave me the tip

I eagerly await your review of my "alleged" criminal career. What no comments on Peter Lance's findings against Santa Barbara Police,you make this feel almost personnel?



Larry "Magic Mendoza

P.S. review my work on the retroactive valuing of the SBCERS pension fund, many people are amazed at my findings and find them to be accurate as well. One of them being a State Agency!

A Santa Barbara Defendent bragging about soft sentencing Kelsey O'Reilly, Corey Lyons 3rd trial, changes to my S.B.C.C.C. blog

Madame District Attorney current defendant Kelsey O'Reilly is talking about how is case will be played out in Santa Barbara Superior Court. He was recently
charged as a major drug dealer along with Eric Bjorkland in a ten
million dollar drug bust. Word on the street is that Mr. O'Reilly is
BRAGGING that after time served he will only do 18 months probation. It
offended me when he and Bjorkland were trying to buy favors from your office with his
contributions to the Josh Lynn for District Attorney campaign. However
to be openly mocking your office and my many friends with the Sheriffs
department seems a bit disrespectful. Madame D.A. I am not out on the street looking for new material,Truth be told most days I am suck at home. So when I hear a man that should have been charged in Federal court and facing the possibility of Life in Prison, his arrogance upsets me.

We have news on the 3rd Corey Lyons Murder Trial:
http://www.keyt.com

Trial Date Set for Corey Lyons CasStory Created: Jul 11, 2011 at 3:49 PM PDT Story Updated:

Jul 11, 2011 at 9:52 PM PDT

"Attorneys in the Corey Lyons murder case say a trial date has

been set for August 30th. Lyons is accused of shooting his brother,
Daniel Lyons, and his sister-in-law Barbara Scharton inside their home
in Santa Barbara in 2009. The first attempt to prosecute Lyons ended in a mistrial last December. A judge declared a second mistrial in June"

Of curse we all know the second mistrial actually occurred May 5th 2011 and not in June.The lack of Journalistic Integrity should be a much bigger issues then my misspelling of the word" there" and "their"! As many of you may already know I have been unable to work for close to nine months now. If my health permits I definitely want to attend as much of the third Corey Lyons trial as I can. I feel there are still a few surprises to come out of this trial. So keep a look out for my upcoming coverage of Mr. Lyons 3rd murder trial on S.B.C.C.c.!

I have made two changes too my blog, the introduction and how each posting will be closed.

Santa Barbara Criminal Court Corruption

"Our Santa Barbara Criminal and Civil
Superior Courts often abuse’s us with illegal and unjust judgments and
convictions. So I investigate law enforcement, judge’s, elected
officials and our California Public Pensions trying to expose the
corruption we are being forced to accept. We must always respect and
support those who practice the law in an even and ethical manner and
demand it from those who do not. Here you can find data for SBCERS,
VECRA, LACERA pensions and others."

All postings will now end with" S.B.C.C.C. a place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style."

www.santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.bogspot.com

More Documentation Concerning the Retroactive Change of Value to our SBCERS Pension Fund Between 1995-96 and 1996-97 Reports

Well in Santa Barbara you just never know who you might run into. I was at breakfast this morning and met a very nice person who I hear might be running for City Council. It was especially nice to  that this possible candidate also happens to be a fan of my blog.
I wish you all the best and offer my services to your campaign. Of course at breakfast there was also a definite candidate for City Council and I offer him my services as well.

Larry "Magic"Mendoza
From: sb_magic@hotmail.com
To: dfrancisco@santabarbaraca.gov; fhotchkiss@santabarbaraca.gov; ghouse@santabarbaraca.gov; rrowse@santabarbaraca.gov; mself@santabarbaraca.gov; hwhite@santabarbaraca.gov; dfarr@countyofsb.org; supervisorcarbajal@sbcbos1.org; jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; steve.lavagnino@countyofsb.org; jwolf@sbcbos2.org; raym@silpac.net; geis@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Subject: FW: More Documentation concerning the retroactive change of value to our SBCERS Pension fund between 1995-96 and 1996-97
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:01:40 -0700
I have been contacted by one State Agency after sending them a copy of my S.E.C. complaint. Here is some additional findings I have made since filling that complaint.

I have since filed this with the S.E.C. as well...
TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1310815614372

Mr. xxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

State of California

After our recent conversation I spent some additional time and performed a year by year comparison of the archived audit data that I recently received. At this time my focus was only with the Santa Barbara County Employee Retirement System (SBCERS) and there reported dollar and funded values.

    What I have been attempting to expose is that some one or some agency within Santa Barbara County Government has retroactively altered specific reported values and funded levels of the SBCERS pension from there previously earlier reported values. What I find even more alarming is that the Valuation firm hired to set these values appears to have assisted the perpetrator with this act. In this case the Buck Consultants reported pension values published in the1995-96 State audit differs from those they report in the 1996-97 State audits. In the 1996-97 audits the 12/31/88 Actuarial Obligation was reported greater and the Valuation of Assets had been reduced. For example the funded levels reported between the two years can differ as high as 23.9% as you can see for yourself below.

California State Controllers Audit….1995-96…….1996-97…

December 31, 1995…………………..92.1%.............87.8%

December 31, 1994…………………..88.1%.............85.0%

December 31, 1992…………………..88.6%.............81.6%.

December 31, 1990………………….83.0%.............64.1%

December 31, 1988………………….91.0%.............67.1%

 Lets look at 12/31/88 and the effect these differences had on the unfunded values between the two valuations. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability jumped from only 26,627,000 in the 95-96 report to 132,627,000 in the 96-97 audits. The 105,990,000 million dollar difference would definitely mean an increased cost to Santa Barbara County Government? Here are the additional changes found under the heading of “Summary of Funding Position” between the two years in question.

                                     

                             Audit of the California State Controllers Office

                                       Summer of Funding Positions

                                   The First Reported Values 1995-96         

                                  The Altered Reported Values 1996-97

Actuary Buck Consultants

Valuation Date…...Actuarial Obligations….Valuation of Assets…Funded Ratio

12/31/95…………….636,834,000….…………586,697,000……….92.1%

12/31/95……………..711,868,472….…………624,822,614……….87.8%

12/31/94…………….586,293,000…………….516,671,000……….88.1%

12/31/94…………….643,452,966…………….546,703,000……….85.0%

12/31/92…………….484,429,000…………….429,421,000……….88.6%

12/31/92…………….552,544,865…………….451,102572……….81.6%

12/31/90…………….400,373,000…………….332,170,000……….83.0%

12/31/90…………….517,987,560…………….332,225,133……….64.1%

12/31/88…………….297,168,000…………….270,543,000……….91.0% 12/31/88…………….403,824,675…………….271,533,553……….67.2%

As you can see the values and years most dramatically affected were 12/31/88 and 12/31/90.Between these two reported values for 12/31/88 there was an increase to the Actuarial Obligation of over 25% or 106,655,375! A 25% obligation increase over night to a 42 year old pension seems a bit drastic. I have forwarded my concerns to Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller Robert Geis as well as the current Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors however to date no one has responded.

Once again I feel my research has left no doubt that an investigation is warranted for some type of misuse or misrepresentation of value with Santa Barbara County Government assets and the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems pension fund. I have attached the files with the data for 1986-87, 19895-96 and 1996-97 California State Controllers Pension Fund Audits for your review.

Best Regards

Larry Mendoza 07/10/11

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have.

Below is the same data as above and how it originally appeared in their yearly audits.

Audit of the California State Controllers Off

                                         Summer of Funding Positions

                                   The First Reported Values 1995-96  

12/31/95…………….636,834,000….…………586,697,000……….92.1%

12/31/94…………….586,293,000…………….516,671,000……….88.1%

12/31/92…………….484,429,000…………….429,421,000……….88.6%

12/31/90…………….400,373,000…………….332,170,000……….83.0%

12/31/88…………….297,168,000…………….270,543,000……….91.0%    

                                         Summer of Funding Positions

                                        The Altered Values of 1996-97  

12/31/95……………..711,868,472….…………624,822,614……….87.8%

12/31/94…………….643,452,966…………….546,703,000……….85.0%

12/31/92…………….552,544,865…………….451,102572……….81.6%

12/31/90…………….517,987,560…………….332,225,133……….64.1%

12/31/88…………….403,824,675…………….271,533,553……….67.2%

Please click on the links below to review the data for the year labeled

1996-97  Fund Values for 5 California County Public Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County
1995-96
1986-87

Further Concerns with our Santa Barbara District Attorney and actions in Superior Court by Judges Eskin and Ochoa. As well as an update of Ms.D'Sant Angelo's appeal to her first conviction. Have you read Peter Lance's five part report on SBPD D.U.I Officer Beutel?

  I started out today writing another posting about the pension crisis and how this and that are effected. I work extremely hard on my pension research in hopes that some day it will create some type of State or Federal investigation. Lately I have been focusing on the negative effect that the pension is having with our local economy. As you probably all know I am also not afraid to question law enforcement and their actions. So I feel I need to make this point: that even with my concerns about our local legal system. I would never allow any department to go underfunded especially law enforcement. When my work comes to fruition I will be just as happy that it adds a sheriff or police position as I would a youth counselor. I have the mutual respect of many in local law enforcement and consider them friends. In fact it is the select few who misuse their law enforcement positions that insult their colleagues and not I.

"A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign, has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant is accorded procedural justice." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4^th35, 48.)

   I have shared some serious concerns with how our District Attorney’s office operates on my blog. I feel far too often they fail to their honor their duty as described above. During the recent budget process Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley began to resemble Josh Lynn. Blaming all our budget woes on alleged “Gang Crimes”, really Joyce a 1440% increases?  Madam D.A. Josh lost to you because the County residents felt the other 99% of crimes committed in Santa Barbara are equally as important as the minority 1%, no pun intended.

 Case in point Peter Jeschke, one of the most read subjects on my blog. Here it is three years after his being charged a second time and we are still waiting for the convicted sex offender to stand trial. You would think that after Mr. Jeschke’s was charged yet another time (3^rd case) earlier this year everything would have been expedited. His total disregard for the law makes the lackadaisical effort from our D.A.’s office all the more confusing.

 

  Or maybe we should be reviewing the preferential treatment of Eric Bjorkland and Kelsey O’Reilly. Two alleged major drug dealers who also happen to have contributed to Josh Lynn’s effort to be elected District Attorney. Both these gentlemen belong in federal court not ours and should be facing the possibility of a life sentences if convicted. Do you think ten million dollars worth of drugs is more than personal use? Maybe I should ask their attorney Josh Lynn. With all our budget woes I would settle for drug convictions if and when they were found to be guilty. That would than allow for the seizure of their property, than the funds from the sales could benefit our local law enforcement.

  Now onto the recent 5 part Santa Barbara News Press report on the alleged illegal actions of a SBPD D.U.I. officer. There is a unique twist to this involving the writer Peter Lance. You see he created the report after having been arrested for a D.U.I. by the officer in question, officer Beutul. Now as luck would have it a friend of mine had also recently been arrested for a D.U.I. by Officer Beutel. Now this stop never should have resulted into a D.U.I. arrest. My friend never should have had blood forcibly removed or gone to jail. After all this for some unknown reason his case was never calendared and charges were never pursued by the District Attorneys office. Did you know officer Beutel was responsible for 20% of all D.U.I. arrest in this County, while the other 600 law enforcement officers handled the remaining 80%? A week after Mr. Lance’s story hit our local media it created another story. That story appeared in last Sundays Los Angeles Times. Here are the links to Mr. Lance’s 8 part investigation and I have also included the head line and link to the Los Angeles Times story.

http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Intro_Part_One_6_22_11.pdf

http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Two_6_23_11.pdf

http://www.peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Three_6_24_11.pdf

http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Four_6_25_11.pdf

http://www.peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Five_6_26_11.pdf
http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Six_7_23_11.pdf
http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Seven_7_24_11.pdf
http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Part_Eight_7_25_11.pdf
http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Editorial_7_24_11.pdf

L.A. Times link

http://peterlance.com/SB_DUI_Editorial_7_24_11.pdfhttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20110702,0,7977144.column

“On the Media: A DUI cop expose — by a DUI suspect. The Santa Barbara News-Press published a five-part, 19,000-word investigation by a freelance journalist against a DUI enforcement police officer. Among that officer's arrests: the journalist

By James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times /July 2, 2011

The series of stories in the Santa Barbara News-Press would have drawn attention for its sheer mass: 19,000 words spread across five days on the front page of the paper. The tough content commanded attention too: accusations that an award-winning police officer had trumped up evidence to increase drunk-driving arrests. And there was a final grabber: The author of the reports had been arrested by the same cop on suspicion of DUI.”

  As Mr. Lance’s case went forward he felt that Officer Beutel was being protected by the prosecutor Mr. Horowitz and Superior Court Judge Eskin

 What follows is a section of the hearing transcript:

“Judge Eskin I don’t think Officer Beutel is the witness to be called.

Mr. Horowitz: I don’t either

Mr. Genis (Defense Attorney): You’re Honor she’s the person who supposedly made the arrest.

Judge Eskin: According to whom?( Larry thinking out loud here, the eye witness A.K.A the Defendant, the arrest report, the probable cause sheet?)

Mr. Genis: Until I put her on the stand I don’t know.

Judge Eskin: You’re fishing, you’re fishing

   Not only do I agree with Mr. Lance’s assessment it brings me to my next example of questionable actions by Superior Court Judge Ochoa and a defendants own attorneys. I will not attempt to recap all the charges and convictions of Denise D’Sant Angelo. I just want to high light a few of my concerns. In her first of two case Ms D’Sant Angelo was convicted of felony grand theft and sentenced to prison. Below is a quick recap from our local media.

Nun Scammer on Trial for Elder Abuse Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Denise D'Sant Angelo—previously convicted of felony grand theft for stealing $2,800 that donors had intended to help three nuns find housing—is finally back in court facing new charges of financial elder abuse and grand theft.

Now compare her case and having to serve two years in prison to this next example which had over 60 victims, involved more than 2.1 million dollars and yet there was only 1 felony charge filed.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

By Indy Staff

David Abraham, 48, was plead guilty on 7/9 to charges of grand theft relating to a scheme in which he sold annuity policies and then transferred them to another company, creating fines to the policyholders but commissions for himself. Abraham was sentence to 90 days in jail. He must also repay the $2.1 million in funds he took from over 60 clients, many of whom were from the Santa Barbara area.

 I reviewed the “Nun Scammer “court case and evidence. Based on my back ground with Real Estate and the fact the money had been returned. At best Ms D’Sant Angelo was guilty of a trust violation the co-mingling of funds and easily I could see us switching her sentencing for Mr. Abrahams. Next the friend of Ms. D’Sant Angelo wrote to the local reporter and shares some thoughts about what she feels was missing from his coverage of the second trial. Keep in mind Ms. D’Sant Angelo had requested and thought an appeal on her first case had been filed by her attorney in both cases Joseph Allen.I think based on what I have shared up to this point you can all follow along with this next part.

Dear News Press Reporter,

As usual you appear to be a mouth piece for the DA's office. You have left out some very important  information during the recent Denise D’Sant Angelo trial.

Did you know Ms. D' Sant Angelo attempted to fire her attorney in late March just prior to this trial, in part because her attorney Joseph Allen had failed to file his opening brief for her appeal?  He also failed to inform D’Sant Angelo about the later dismissal of the appeal and then tried to mislead her and family members about the status of it.

  The appeal case has since been reinstated and she is being represented by the California Appellate Project (CAP). It was CAP’s position that it was a conflict for Mr. Allen to represent D'Sant Angelo in the 2nd case due to a variety of factors. Like "failing to provide competent counsel and his abandonment of the appeal process." You didn’t hear about this because our D.A. and Mr. Allen did not want you to hear instead you hear:

"However, he also acknowledged that defendants have the right to be represented by attorneys of their choice and said only a brief delay would be permissible."  Funny this sentiment wasn’t expressed prior to trial when she discharged Mr. Allen the first time.

In light of the appellate court's finding, I find it quite odd that Judge Ochoa would testify on the record that "Joe Allen did a fine job at trial

Judge Ochoa than refused to allow Mr. Allen to be discharged (prior to trial-Marsden motion-April 6) because Mr. Allen stated that he didn’t file the opening brief in the appeal because "he did not feel there were any grounds for an appeal." That's funny because originally he did he file the Notice of Appeal, what was he thinking? CAP's Motion for reinstatement of the appeal included Joe Allen's last plea to the appellate court for yet another (4th) continuance. A declaration that stated he felt there WERE meritorious issues and grounds for an appeal. Mr. Allen lied to Judge Ochoa. These are all a matter of record.

CAP's motion included numerous alleged violations of rules of professional conduct as well as other business and professional codes by Allen. The 2nd District Court of Appeals agreed.(Not just in D'Sant Angelo's pleadings) There is a pending State Bar complaint against Allen for his violations. 

I will not even begin to address the prosecutorial (or probation dept) misconduct. Mr. Reporter you have never even addressed the juror misconduct during this trial or did you intentionally leave that part out? A juror approached Judge Ochoa's wife at the county fair (during trial proceedings) and began spouting off how much she wanted to convict D'Sant Angelo (this prior even to defense being presented) she went on to explain she has posted all of her ranting on Facebook. Paula Lopez confirmed the Facebook rants and told her husband. The juror was eventually reprimanded and discharged. This alone is grounds for a mistrial."

 Well in closing all I can say is what the hell are these Superior Court Judges doing. We have Judge Eskin challenging whether or not the defense attorney or defendant can identify the arresting officer. He even goes so far as to claim the defense is “fishing”. What happen to the most basic of Constitutional Rights the defendants right to face his accuser?

Than we have Judge Ochoa testifying to the level of representation the defendant D’Sant Angelo received from her attorney. Now mind you all this was happening not only with the District Attorneys representatives present it was happening with their approval as well. So I finally close this posting with the same quote I started with:

  "A criminal prosecutor is not only an advocate but, as a representative of the sovereign, has a duty to seek justice, which includes the responsibility of seeing that the defendant is accorded procedural justice." ." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L.Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629]; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4^th35, 48.)

Below is the Docket history with Ms. D’ Sant Angelo’s appeal of her first conviction.

06/01/2011

Order filed.

Appellant's Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Reinstate Appeal is GRANTED. The clerk of the superior court is directed to return the remittitur issued on May 9, 2011, to this court forthwith. The clerk of this court is directed to file appellant's financial affidavit and forward a copy of the notice of appeal filed on July 1, 2010 to the California Appellate Project for recommendation of counsel on appeal. Appellant's former counsel, Joseph D. Allen, is directed to forward appellant's copy of the record to the California Appellate Project, 520 S. Grand Ave., 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 on or before June 6, 2011.

Docket (Register of Actions) 
The People v. d'Sant Angelo
Division 6
Case Number B225609

Date	Description	Notes
07/07/2010	Notice of appeal lodged/received (criminal).	dated 7-1-10; from judgment/jury trial (6-8-10); 487(a)PC 2 yrs SP verified by phone that Joseph D. Allen, Esq. is retained on appeal.
08/27/2010	Record on appeal filed.	C-2 (464) & R-4 (952) + Prob. Report & 2 "Marsden" hearing transcripts dtd 1/28/10 & 10/27/10
10/07/2010	Sealed records pursuant to request sent to:	personally handed to attorney Joseph Allen at Clerk's Office; Marsden Transcript dtd rt1/28/10 & 10/27/10
10/07/2010	Requested - extension of time
10/08/2010	Granted - extension of time.
11/16/2010	Requested - extension of time
11/17/2010	Granted - extension of time.	To 12/20/10 (45 days) only to file BOTH Appellant's Opening Brief AND Appellant's Motion to Augment Record on Appeal.
12/20/2010	Requested - extension of time
12/22/2010	Granted - extension of time.	NO FURTHER!!!
01/26/2011	Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
02/22/2011	Requested - extension of time
02/23/2011	Denied - extension of time.
03/07/2011	Appeal dismissed for failure to file opening brief.	Defendant and Appellant: d'Sant Angelo, Denise Rachelle Attorney: Joseph D. Allen
04/07/2011	Received:	unserved letter from appellant Denise d'Sant Angelo informing the court that she contacted CAP and requested that an attorney be represented on her behalf as her retained counsel failed to file a brief and the court dismissed her appeal on 3/7/11. (DCA clerk advised Ms. d'Sant Angelo that we have now lost jurisdiction and suggested she speak to CAP about this. DCA clerk also made a courtesy call to Rick Lennon at CAP advising him of the letter and that we have lost jurisdiction in this matter. Noted by Acting P.J. Perren on 4/8/11
05/09/2011	Remittitur issued.
05/09/2011	Case complete.
05/13/2011	Motion filed.	Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Reinstate the Appeal with Request for Appointment of Counsel
06/01/2011	Order filed.	Appellant's Motion to Recall the Remittitur and Reinstate Appeal is GRANTED. The clerk of the superior court is directed to return the remittitur issued on May 9, 2011, to this court forthwith. The clerk of this court is directed to file appellant's financial affidavit and forward a copy of the notice of appeal filed on July 1, 2010 to the California Appellate Project for recommendation of counsel on appeal. Appellant's former counsel, Joseph D. Allen, is directed to forward appellant's copy of the record to the California Appellate Project, 520 S. Grand Ave., 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 on or before June 6, 2011.
06/01/2011	Financial affidavit filed.