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.