Monday, September 5, 2011

Date Set for Santa Barbara Gang Injunction Arguments. Santa Barbara Superior Court seals the purposed Injunction keeping the public in the Dark AGAIN!

                                      Chris Thank You for an outstanding article!

Date Set for Gang Injunction Arguments

City Attorneys Look to Impose Preliminary Restrictions

Monday, September 5, 2011

Twelve defense attorneys, four City of Santa Barbara lawyers, four police officers, two members of the media, and one Judge James Brown gathered Wednesday afternoon for the next round in the city’s quest to install a gang injunction, though not much actually happened at the hearing.
The biggest news to come out of the scheduled meeting (which turned out to be mostly procedural) was that oral arguments for a preliminary injunction would come on November 16, with both sides briefing the case prior to that. A preliminary injunction would have similar effects as a permanent injunction: Alleged gang members wouldn’t be allowed to wear certain types of clothing, associate with fellow gang members, or congregate in certain locations — “safety zones” — throughout the city. The widely controversial, permanent version of the injunction is slowly making its way through the legal process.
The original legal document — filed in March, not long after two separate incidents in which citizens with no gang ties died at the hands of alleged gang members — names 30 defendants who Police Chief Cam Sanchez and others have labeled the city’s “baddest of the bad.” Roughly half of the alleged gang members are currently behind bars, many of them with rap sheets to back up the city’s claims that they have violent histories. But there are others whose gang history, and perhaps more importantly, current lifestyle, are not being accurately portrayed with their names on the list.
Because the original court filing made reference to defendants’ juvenile court proceedings, the city filed an amended complaint on July 22, supposedly to eliminate all references to juvenile court. The amended complaint, however, is under seal, unavailable for public consumption. The court intended to unseal the complaint, as well as any future documentation in the case, but held off on such an order this time around. Going forward, Judge Brown said in his court order Wednesday, there was to be no reference to any juvenile court proceedings.
As for the preliminary injunction, Tom Shapiro from the city attorney’s office hinted that documents that will be submitted in support of the city’s request for preliminary injunction will be a couple hundred pages long.
The next court date is October 12.

Please do not make this a race issue, it is so much bigger than that. The real issue is the abuse of the Constitution by those sworn to uphold it!
  Well it is nice to see Chris Meagher rebound and represent all sides in the Gang Injunction  issue. In Chris's current article he informs us that Over half of the 30 people originally named on the injunction are currently in jail or prison. Then you have the ones that should not be included in the injunction in the first place. Than when you consider the claims that there are approximately 800 ALLEGED GANG MEMBERS. Yet the D.A. and City can only name 7-10 current adults not incarcerated. WHAT GANG PROBLEM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Did you know all Real Estate transactions within a Gang Injunction Boundary are required by law to disclose the fact prior to the sale of their property can being finalized. When police Captain Martel and officer N. Rivas appeared before the Neighborhood Advisory Council they had no answer's for the council about what effects the possible injunction would have on Real Estate. One person who attended the meeting said they were disappointed to see that the Officers who were there to answer questions, could not.

Just last Saturday at Sebastian Aldana's Kick Off for City Council I was interviewed by KEYT news. They chose not to air my interview which is odd because of what I had to say. I said that with only 1% of crime linked to "Gangs" where is the praise. Praise for Police, Probation and our Intervention programs. Praise for our City Council and Residents who worry about our youth, but that praise has been slow in coming. I mean when you have already cut in half the original 30 named in the civil action, where is the praise?"

How about a CIVIL action ( GANG INJUNCTION) for the PEOPLE that is sealed from the public, can that be Constitutionally legal! Have the defendants seen it? Or just the Lawyers as the produce the predetermined outcome? I am upset with our District Attorney J Dudley and our current sitting City Council. Once again the public was denied any chance to view the current Injunction since it has been altered from it's original format to the courts. If you recall the City and City Council failed to perform their duty and have any public forums about whether or not there was a true need for such a drastic move by the City.

It is extremely arrogant of the Mayor, City Council and D.A. Joyce Dudley to exclude it's residents from participating in such an important issue. The Fund for Santa Barbara wrote a letter to those I just mentioned sharing their concerns. I have attached this letter to this email.
The Fund for Santa Barbara a non profit Community Foundation. that supports grassroots organizations working for Social, Economic, Environmental and Political change in Santa Barbara County. They had some very serious concerns about the Gang Injunction process and wrote the Mayor and City Council of Santa Barbara expressing them.

Gang Injunction Civil Rights Concerns

On June 23rd, the Fund for Santa Barbara’s Board of Directors sent a letter to top City of Santa Barbara leaders to express civil rights concerns associated with the civil gang injunctions requested in Superior Court by the City.

Read the Board’s letter and

The Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors back on 1/20/2000 opposed the passing of prop 21 because it allowed any juvenile crime to be labeled a Gang Crime. This is something Law Enforcement and our D.A.'s offices abuse far to often. I have attached the comments from that day with this email.

At its January 20, 2000 meeting the Human Relations Commission voted to oppose Proposition 21, by a vote
of 8-3, and to oppose Proposition 22 by a vote of 6-5.
a)Proposition 21, the ‘Juvenile Crime Initiative’ would, if passed, result in significant changes to the
Juvenile Justice system. The entire proposed law is 48 pages in length [ATTACHMENT 1]. Summaries and
comparison charts prepared by the Legislative Analyst for the State of California, League of Women Voters,
Secretary of State and Chief Probation Officer Association are also attached. A list of individuals and
organizations opposed to Proposition 21 is attached [ATTACHMENT 6].
The most significant changes, and those which concerned the Human Relations Commission, include: a)the
elimination of informal probation as an option for any juvenile arrested for any felony; mandating the filing
of charges in adult court for certain offenses for offenders as young as 14, thus eliminating the review,
evaluation, and recommendation by Probation Officers or the Juvenile Court Judge; b) a very broad and
subjective redefinition of the concept of ‘gang activity’ or ‘gang related; allowing any public offense to be
deemed a felony if it is deemed ‘gang related’;

In closing the City was not advised of the changes with the current version of the purposed Gang Injunction. The sealing of the purposed injunction by Superior Court keeps us uninformed which seems to be the desired effect our City Government is looking for. They did this even after the public out cry the first time around I hope we express our unhappiness with the current City Council in the next Election this November. 

Santa Barbara Gang Injunction Unfairly Targets Some-by Youth CineMedia

Here are the Real Numbers and where I found them @

Gang-Related Offenses


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

No comments: