Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Watch 13 year old Rachel Crow singing with some powerful SOUL,off the hook!!!

You Want To Feel Some Soul, Rachel Crow singing I Rather Go Blind ("Etta James")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMRQ6L1s3I





www.youtube.com
In High Definition Rachel Crow - singing I Rather Go Blind by Beyonce on the NEW music Show The X-Factor. She makes an instant classic with this live soulful...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QMgyfehg0

Rachel Crow -The X Factor boot camp audition 2011 "If I were a boy ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QMgyfehg0Oct 9, 2011 - 3 min - Uploaded by petitoiseau1
Rachel Crow singing " If I were a boy" by Beyonce .

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

Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley will not File Excessive Force charges against SBPD officer Tudor in Denunzio DUI Case. THE PUBLIC DISAGREES WITH THAT LACK OF ACTION. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS NEED TO WAKE UP!!!!!!

  I PLACED THE PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE THE STORY, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS  NEED TO WAKE UP.




Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines
Shocking...SBPD gets away with it again...
miked442 (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Still waiting for the video footage...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
-1 + 1 = ... :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dont drink and drive playa. again. and again.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SBPD getting away with it, or the DA has no nads, or the DA is in cahoots? which one is it? I will say Mr. Dozer will call a spade a spade. While I am disappointed with their decision not to prosecute TUDOR, the explanation is reasonable. It would be a cluster#@$% of opinions, lenghty costly trial with a hung jury. I think the civil case will be quite different. They really should release the videos regardless. Gee, maybe Mayor Schneider will intervene?....NOT!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In this specific case, if the arrestee has been found not to have resisted arrest, then logic would say there was excessive force based on eyewitness testimony. An uncorrupt DA's office would have no problems seeing and acting on that.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force.
sbs124 (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sbs124-You obviously have zero concept of how our judicial system works.
KV-You know it's not that simple.
Hell, even I want to see the video's as it appears to those, such as myself that are mostly UNINFORMED, that something was not handled correctly.
Actually, since Denunzio and I are both Italian he MUST be innocent...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The DA should charge Tudor and let the jury decide if there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason we have a system that asks 12 jurors of his peers to make the decision of whether or not Tudor used excessive force."
- sbs124
Juries don't indict suspects. It looks like you're skipping over a step; the indictment. This is where cause is, or is not found by the grand jury to go to trial. If Tudor had been charged, he would likely have been charged with a felony. A suspect charged with a felony has to be indicted before a jury trial is had. Also, if it was found that Tudor acted under "color of law", the FBI would be tasked to investigate, and he would be prosecuted federally, in which case there would be a federal indictment by a federal grand jury.


http://www.independent.com/news/2011/nov/30/da-wont-file-excessive-force-resisting-arrest-char/#commenttoggle

Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley DISAGREES

DA Won't File Excessive Force, Resisting Arrest Charges in Denunzio DUI Case

The Office Cites Differing Accounts of 13 Witnesses

Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The District Attorney’s Office will not file excessive force or resisting arrest charges related to the incident between Santa Barbara Police Officer Aaron Tudor and DUI suspect Tony Denunzio in the Loreto Plaza parking lot on October 21. While some witnesses said Tudor used excessive force in apprehending Denunzio, Chief Cam Sanchez came out in support of Tudor’s actions, explaining he believes appropriate actions were taken, and that sometimes police work isn't pretty.
Denunzio, who has two prior alcohol-related driving convictions, was pulled over by Tudor after allegedly changing lanes three times along Las Positas Road without signaling. Denunzio told The Independent he had only one drink at the Boathouse restaurant that night, but his attorney and the DA’s office confirmed Tuesday that a blood sample taken right after the incident showed Denunzio's blood alcohol content was .09 percent. His attorney, Darryl Genis, questioned the manner in which Denunzio’s blood was drawn, however, and plans to mount a legal attack challenging the sample. Genis is also having his own lab test a sample of Denunzio's blood drawn at County Jail prior to his client being taken to the hospital.
In the meantime, Denunzio will be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 percent, and driving on a suspended driver’s license. He will also face allegations of two prior alcohol-related driving convictions.
Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 for alleged DUI
Click to enlarge photo
Courtesy Photo
Tony Denunzio shortly after his October 2011 for alleged DUI
During the incident, according to witnesses, Tudor — an officer since June 2007 and a member of the department’s drinking and driving team — struck Denunzio with closed fists and kneed him in the ribs, even though Denunzio didn’t appear to be resisting. A police spokesperson said Tudor’s Taser was activated 13 times during the encounter, though it isn’t clear how many times it made contact with Denunzio.
Denunzio, during an interview four days after the incident, showed signs of the encounter — his face was still bruised, his eye red, and his breathing labored from broken ribs. “Why is this being done?” witness Ellen Hunter said Denunzio yelled during the arrest. “Why are you doing this?” Hunter said her husband eventually told her to call 9-1-1 to get Denunzio help. “A police officer is beating up a driver for no reason, and we need help,” she recalled telling dispatch.
Chief Sanchez, in a statement released the week following the altercation, defended Tudor, saying Denunzio wasn’t complying with verbal orders, and that Tudor used palm and knee strikes to gain control over his arrestee. “All of the decisions made and options exercised by the arresting officer that were captured on the video recording were justified standard law enforcement practices given Mr. Denunzio’s resistance,” Sanchez said.
The footage captured by a new dash-cam in Tudor’s patrol car showed parts of the incident. In addition to that video, the DA’s office viewed two other videos as well -- one from Gelson’s Market and one taken by a witness. Wednesday, The Independent renewed a public records act request to view these videos.
The DA’s office said there were two divergent views regarding the force utilized by Tudor. “They are both reasonable assessments of the arrest procedure in this case,” it said. In all, there were 13 witnesses who saw all or some of the incident between Tudor and Denunzio. None of those 13 people are police officers. Some characterized Tudor’s actions as appropriate, some did not. “There were some witnesses who saw more, there were witnesses who saw less,” Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer said. “There were those who characterized Mr. Denunzio as resisting arrest and not complying with the officer. There were witnesses who felt the officer was not acting in a way consistent with professional police behavior.”
With divergent views among the people who saw what happened, and a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, officials determined that filing charges relating to the altercation was not appropriate.
Tuesday morning, with his significant other sitting in the front row of the courtroom in support, Denunzio pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of domestic battery, stemming from an incident alleged to have taken place prior to Denunzio’s DUI arrest.
With his alleged victim prepared to tell Judge Jim Herman there was no reason for an order banning contact between the two, the judge decided a more substantive hearing was needed, and pushed the matter out. In the meantime, the judge opted to forgo a no contact order, but instead told Denunzio he could not molest, annoy, threaten, or harass the woman. “That’s not a problem, because he’s not going to do that anyway,” Genis said. A December 6 hearing was scheduled to address the order.
Details on the allegation are slim because it is a domestic violence charge. Genis said police were summoned because there was an argument of some sorts, and Denunzio ended up leaving before authorities arrived. He didn’t hit the woman and he didn’t break anything, Genis said. When authorities did arrive, his significant other told them nothing really happened.
After the hearing, Genis repeated a mantra he had stated earlier, saying he believes the charge is designed to drum up the idea that Denunzio is a violent man and was resisting arrest the night of the alleged DUI and subsequent altercation with the police officer. Dozer said he wouldn’t comment on that claim, though he told The Independent a few weeks ago that “if I was a defense lawyer, that’s the kind of spin I’d put out for my client.”
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Based his past illegal actions can we trust him to over see the Gang Injunction? Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Santa Barbara Prosecutors including Hilary Dozier

This one illegal  act by Santa Barbara Prosecutor Hilary Dozier cost the City of Santa Barbara more than all the convicted criminals he has convicted!
 http://www.1union1.com/wrongful_conviction.html

VENTURA COUNTY 
Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Prosecutors
 Law: Efren Cruz of Oxnard seeks $120 million. 
He served four years for a shooting in Santa Barbara. 
  LA Times 

Dec. 13, 2001 
By TRACY WILSON, TIMES STAFF WRITER 
 
An Oxnard man wrongly convicted of murder has filed a federal lawsuit against 
Santa Barbara prosecutors and police officers, accusing them of negligence 
and conspiracy to keep him in prison. 
After four years behind bars, Efren Cruz, 27, was freed Oct. 12 when a judge 
ruled that credible evidence suggests that another man pulled the trigger 
during a 1997 gang shooting in downtown Santa Barbara. 
Last week, Cruz filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that 
accuses nearly a dozen law enforcement officials of violating his civil 
rights before and after his trial. The lawsuit accuses Santa Barbara County 
Dist. Atty. Thomas W. Sneddon and three senior prosecutors of conspiracy and 
malicious prosecution for allegedly withholding evidence favorable to Cruz. 
Prosecutors and six Santa Barbara police officers are accused of negligent 
investigation for allegedly failing to pursue evidence that indicated that 
another suspect was the killer. 
The lawsuit also charges Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Hilary Dozer, lead 
prosecutor on the case, with defamation for blaming Cruz in the media "when 
he knew or should have known that there was great doubt that [Cruz] was [the] 
actual shooter." 
Cruz is seeking more than $120 million in damages. 
"I think that my client is entitled to be compensated for 4 1/2 years in 
Pelican Bay," said Thousand Oaks attorney Richard Hamlish, referring to the 
maximum-security prison. 
"To serve there and be innocent of a crime, the kid's life was ruined," 
Hamlish said. 
Sneddon and other law enforcement officials named in the lawsuit could not be 
reached Wednesday. Dozer and Santa Barbara County Counsel Shane Stark said 
they had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. 
The suit stems from Cruz's arrest after a shooting at Santa Barbara Parking 
Lot 10 on Jan. 26, 1997. Two groups of young men--some Oxnard gang 
members--exchanged taunts in the parking structure at Anacapa and Ortega 
streets, and one of the men pulled a gun. 
Michael Torres, a 23-year-old Santa Barbara resident, died of a gunshot wound 
to the head. Santa Ynez resident James Miranda, 21 at the time, was seriously 
injured but recovered. 
Cruz, the only one to not flee the scene, was arrested, and police found a 
chrome .38-caliber revolver. Forensic tests revealed that Cruz had gunpowder 
residue on his hands, and a driver leaving the parking structure identified
him as the shooter. 
Prosecutors charged Cruz and three others--including Cruz's cousin, Gerardo 
Reyes--with murder. One suspect pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and Reyes 
and the other suspect were released for lack of evidence. Cruz was the only 
one to stand trial. 
According to Cruz's lawsuit, Santa Barbara authorities had evidence favorable 
to Cruz before his trial, but failed to turn it over to the defense. That 
evidence included other witnesses' statements to police suggesting that Reyes 
was the shooter. 
Although Cruz denied shooting Torres and Miranda, jurors found him guilty of 
murder and attempted murder, and in January 1998, he was sentenced to 41 
years to life in prison. 
A year later, Oxnard Police Det. Dennis McMaster received a tip from an 
informant that Reyes was the Lot 10 shooter. 
At the request of Santa Barbara authorities, Ventura County prosecutors 
investigated and arranged an undercover meeting between the informant and 
Reyes, who were members of the same Oxnard gang. During a conversation 
secretly tape-recorded, Reyes admitted to the shooting. 
Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury wrote a letter to Sneddon 
stating that based on new evidence, "we have concluded that Gerardo Reyes, 
not Efren Cruz, killed Michael Torres." 
However, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction of Cruz. 
But Superior Court Judge Frank Ochoa, ruling after a 26-day hearing, 
concluded that there was credible evidence that Reyes was the shooter, not 
Cruz, and ordered him released. 
According to the lawsuit, prosecutors abandoned their obligation to 
investigate the case after new evidence came to light. They also conspired to 
discredit Reyes' confession and keep Cruz in prison, the suit says. 
As a result, Cruz suffered humiliation, depression and emotional distress 
requiring psychological counseling, according to the lawsuit. 
Cruz was out of town and could not be reached for comment. But Adela Reyes, 
his mother, said the lawsuit was not about money as much as sending a message 
to Santa Barbara authorities. 
"People make mistakes," Reyes said. "They had the opportunity to say they 
made a mistake. But they are still saying Efren was the real shooter. 
Hopefully this will open their eyes." 


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

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Peter Lance D.U.I. case dismissed : Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill rules traffic stop ran afoul of the US Constitution, What about the Unconstitutional Ex Parte Motion filed by the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office?‏

 Funny how Superior Court judge Brian Hill now sites the Constitution for his actions. But had no problem with an Unconstitutional ex parte motion that was filed by the Santa Barbara  D.A.'s office. We can no longer allow Judge Hill pick and chose when he follows the law and protects the Constitution.

Lance case dismissed : Judge Brian Hill rules traffic stop ran afoul of the US Constitution

By SCOTT STEEPLETON NEWS-PRESS CITY EDITOR
Peter Lance, left, with his defense attorney Darryl Genis after their legal victory Tuesday.
STEVE MALONE/NEWS-PRESS

Officer Kasi Beutel arrives at the Department of Motor Vehicles office in Ventura earlier this year for a hearing into the Peter Lance DUI matter.
SCOTT STEEPLETON/NEWS-PRESS

November 16, 2011 5:59 AM
Calling a New Year's Day traffic stop that resulted in the DUI arrest of investigative journalist Peter Lance unconstitutional, a judge on Tuesday dismissed the case against the 63-year-old.
At the heart of defense motions to suppress all evidence against Mr. Lance and dismiss charges altogether was this question: Did Officer Bruno Peterson of the Santa Barbara Police Department have probable cause to stop Mr. Lance for waiting several seconds at a green light on Santa Barbara Street before driving off in the early-morning hours of Jan. 1?
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill told the court he was "educated" on case law pertaining to such stops by a brief filed by defense attorney Darryl Genis that cited several out-of-state cases involving police officers stopping motorists who, like Mr. Lance, hesitated a few seconds - and in at least one instance 10 seconds - at a green light or stop sign before taking off.
"In each of the cases, without exception," said Judge Hill, "the court granted the motion to suppress."
"Every case found that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
In a nod to the term of art that goes into such findings, Judge Hill followed suit.
"Motion to suppress is granted," he said. "The case is dismissed."
Mr. Genis, seated at the defense table to his client's left, gave Mr. Lance a pat on the back; the men then shook hands.
In the back of the courtroom, an out-of-uniform Officer Kasi Beutel, who made the arrest and whose actions on duty and before she became a police officer five years ago have come under fire over possible illegalities, shot a quick look at her husband, Officer Mark Corbett.
The defense eventually filed out into the hallway, followed moments later by Deputy District Attorney Michael Carrozzo. After about 10 minutes, lead prosecutor Sanford Horowitz came out, followed by Officers Beutel and Corbett.
"Judge Hill made a just and courageous decision," Mr. Genis said afterward.
The criminal case may be over, but numerous questions raised by Mr. Lance - who turned his case into an investigation of government misconduct and published his findings in the News-Press after he says his signature was forged on a document waiving his right to a retestable blood sample - remain: Did Officer Beutel, Officer Corbett and another officer "witness" alleged forgeries on blood-test waivers in this case and others?
How is it that Officer Beutel was able to provide extended interviews on this matter to the prosecution in September while at the same time being deemed unavailable to meet with the defense on this matter?
Other questions the public may never get answers to include: Did then-accountant Kasi Beutel, prior to becoming a cop five years ago, commit bankruptcy fraud? And, did she, during the interview process to become a Santa Barbara cop, disclose her bankruptcy?
Another unknown is how the judge would have ruled on a motion filed by Mr. Carrozzo, perhaps in a state of exasperation with the defense, that seemingly would have ordered anyone who ever mentioned anything about the Lance case online to scrub the Internet of all case-related content. (Higher-ups defended the motion for its intent, which essentially was to silence out-of-court comments by Mr. Lance and Mr. Genis even though the case was still in the pre-trial stage.)
Judge Hill got Tuesday's hearing going with a sort of boxing-match advisory to the attorneys and Mr. Lance to keep it clean.
"Under no circumstances are the attorneys to speak to each other," he said. "You are not to raise your voice, engage in hyperbole and don't use metaphors that are inappropriate for court."
"I'm just not going to tolerate having to manage the behavior of attorneys in this courtroom," he said.
Some in court probably thought the judge was directing his words at Mr. Genis, whose zealous defense of clients sometimes results in the very things Judge Hill was trying to avoid.
But about 90 seconds into the judge's discussion of his research into case law about police stops, one couldn't help but wonder whether it was Mr. Horowitz whose gasket he was anticipating blowing.
The judge retraced testimony by Officer Peterson and his partner, Officer Heather Clark, who both said under oath that while Mr. Lance did hesitate three to five seconds on a green and then several more even after they pointed a light at him, there was nothing about his driving for the next couple of blocks or so before he was stopped that would give rise to a stop. He didn't swerve, didn't speed, didn't cross into oncoming traffic.
Mr. Lance's hesitating apparently didn't even bother the motorist behind him, said the judge, noting, "There was no toot of the horn."
Judge Hill weighed whether the so-called community caretaker standard was enough for Officer Peterson to pull Mr. Lance over. After all, depending on whose accounts of that morning you believe, Mr. Lance's head was either drooping so that his chin touched his chest or he was simply looking down.
A droop may have indicated a medical problem, but looking down may also have been a sign he was reaching for a soda between his legs, or for some other inconsequential reason, got momentarily distracted.
And everybody's done that, right? said the judge.
The judge also noted that when he did drive away, Mr. Lance was followed by Officer Peterson for a period lasting longer than the time Mr. Lance hesitated on the green. That was enough time for the officer to note any moving violations, any signs of a motorist suffering a medical ailment or observe anything related to a possible DUI.
But neither Officer Peterson nor Officer Clark noted any such thing, because Mr. Lance committed no violations, they said.
Nor did Mr. Lance make an unsafe turning movement, which Officer Beutel wrote in a report was the basis for the initial stop. Not only did she know this to be an error of fact, according to Officer Peterson, Officer Beutel did nothing to correct the error.
It was only after the questionable stop that Officer Peterson said he noticed the smell of alcohol on Mr. Lance's breath and called for backup - Officer Beutel, at the time the head of the department's Drinking Driver Team and a star among cops who arrest people suspected of driving impaired.
A breath test indicated Mr. Lance blew a .09, one-tenth over the legal limit. But Mr. Lance challenged the way the test was administered by Officer Beutel, claiming she covered one of the testing unit's ports to ensure a higher BAC reading. (That's another question the dismissal leaves unanswered.)
Judge Hill said other courts have found four or five seconds to not be an extended period of time to wait at a green light. "Three seconds is very, very short and does not give rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot," he said.
While the judge in an earlier portion of the hearing invited Mr. Horowitz to cite cases showing the opposite of where this all seemed to be going, the end for the prosecution truly was near when the judge said, "I'm not certain that it's fruitful for the district attorney to give time to researching cases."
There simply aren't any.
Mr. Lance still has the Department of Motor Vehicles to deal with. His driving privilege hangs in the balance, because the DMV is not bound by Judge Hill's decision.
Still, a proper hearing in that arena could require Officer Beutel to appear, and history shows she has not always been available to do so.
Mr. Horowitz did not respond to a request for comment after the hearing.
His immediate supervisor, Chief Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, told the News-Press that Judge Hill took guidance in his ruling from out-of-state cases because there's little California law to turn to.
But the judge didn't have to go that route.
"Out-of-state cases are not binding authority on California courts," said Mr. Auchincloss. "When we do our research, our focus is generally on California law and federal law, so a judge can cite out-of-state cases, but there's no compunction for him to follow them at all."
"The amount of weight that a judge gives to an out-of-state case is dependent on the judge and how much weight he wants to give it."
At the end of the hearing, Judge Hill said prosecutors could appeal the ruling.
"Whether we will is another question," said Mr. Auchincloss. "It depends on the circumstances."
Mr. Genis disputed this notion.
"That would be a very interesting appeal," he said. "Had the judge stopped at the suppress motion, yes, they have 30 days to appeal."
"But the judge also said case dismissed," Mr. Genis added. "If the judge had held in abeyance the dismissal, they would have had time to appeal. Because they didn't say we're thinking of appealing, they waived the objection and invited the error, and they cannot now complain about it."
Mr. Lance emerged from court Tuesday with a smile. But behind it was an angered man. "I'm thrilled, but there are so many remaining issues."
"I came in today not expecting a dismissal based on the way the DA has handled this from the beginning," Mr. Lance said. "It showed there was misconduct from the beginning."
Misconduct, said Mr. Lance, that began with the traffic stop and continued with Kasi Beutel.
"It shocked me to see my signature on the Trombetta waiver, the blood waiver," he said. "I said to myself, 'Is this just my case or are there other cases?' "
While the judge made no ruling about officer credibility, a handwriting expert working with the defense determined that nine instances of forged blood waivers trace back to Officer Beutel and others.
"Why is she back on the job now with this dark cloud hanging over her, with her credibility hanging over her?" said Mr. Lance.
Later in the day, District Attorney Joyce Dudley issued a statement touting the fact that Judge Hill "did not find any misconduct on the part of any of the involved officers ... or any member of the District Attorney's Office."
Mr. Genis called the statement misleading, because after answering the constitutional question, it became unnecessary for the judge to rule on "all the other sins and transgressions of Officer Kasi Beutel that have been called into question by Peter Lance's investigation.
"The intent of her press release is to suggest that by his ruling Judge Hill somehow vindicated the offic
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

A Gang Injunction workshop tomorrow I hope our Santa Barbara City Council and Mayor attend. The injunction effects more than just 30 families try 330 Individuals and Families

Hello,
 There will be an important community workshop!  tomorrow Nov 17th at the moose lodge on Victoria st  from 6-7pmThis one is important to you if you have any interest in our Latino community population located in the city of Santa Barbara areas of 93103 or 93103. At the meeting the attorneys will go over the actual terms and conditions of the document and how to get involved to make changes that will better suit your community.The mayor and City Council started the Gang Injunction process and have a duty to follow through and review the changes as well as the public's opinion. The Constitution must not arbitrarily be applied to suit the needs of the few. Based on the recent actions taken in the Peter lance D.U.i. case our District Attorneys office and our Superior Court has shown they have little regard for the law or our Constitution. You must stop and ask yourself why when you see how Mr. Lance's attorney attacked the whole D.U.I. process in Santa Barbara. You must ask why Ricardo Juarez's attorney feels so strong in reversing his conviction that she has already attempted to have the California Supreme court her her case. Will the Ricardo Juarez case turn out to be another Efren Cruz case where the conviction is eventually over turned, I think it will.
 
>
> Things affected in the terms and conditions of this document for 330 individuals and their families.
>
>   You must find out what is written in the document because if this becomes law, this WILL HAVE TO BE enforced as written PERMANENTLY!
>
> Here are some of our concerns:
>
> SCHOOLS
>
> there are 3 terms that eliminate parent participation, picking up your children from school, talking to your children on your way home from school, or being present in or around campus.
>
> SCHOOL DISTRICT CHILDREN CENTERS & after school programs
>
> You will no longer be able to be around school areas in the safety zones or go on campus. This means that most children centers and afterschool programs will not be able to have these parents participate, or even pick their children up in case of a natural disaster or emergency without violating the order.
>
> INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
>
> You will not be able to participate in community center activities or the boys and girls clubs. Even though they receive intervention funds for programs.
>
>  PARKS AND RECREATION CENTERS
>
> You will not be able to take your family to the park, participate in healthy community activities with your family during public events, or participate in all city public recreation centers. This also states that you may not be in or around the facilities or areas.
>
>   So if you have a daughter or son performing in a public event or parade, you have to tell them you can’t go!
>
> TRANSPORTATION:
>
> The first term eliminates the ability of being able to wait for a bus or be in a bus without violating the order. You will not be able to freely transport yourself to and from schools or church without fear of police harassment.
>
> CIVIL RIGHTS
>
> The order eliminates the use a cell phones in the areas termed safety zones without police harassment.
>
>   you will no longer be able to visit a family home in the areas without prior written permission from the owner.
>
>   You will have to abide by probation terms and conditions even though you have not committed a crime. You will not be able to communicate with family members if they have ever associated with other youth that are deemed by police as possible gang related youth or adults.
>
>
>
> IF YOU ARE A HOME OWNER or own a business
>
> You will have to disclose that you live in a gang area, this will affect property values, home owner insurance or business insurance.
>
> MOST importantly
>
> THIS IS A PERMANENT ORDER
>
> This injunction does not have a sunset clause! This means that we expect these gangs to stay in Santa Barbara over 100 years from now and will need the same kind of enforcement.
>
> THE GANG INJUNCTION IS AREA ZONED
>
> Meaning a person can simply move from one zip code to the next. The order would not be in affect and people are free to continue to
>
>   create unsafe leaving environments just by changing address by one mile would make this person safe from this injunction.
>
> WHAT ABOUT THE COST
>
> Our city officials have not itemized the budget and our city council gave the go ahead to the city attorney to file the injunction without a public hearing or even an agenda item. We do not know the cost of the legal fees or what our city council plans on spending to file a civil individual suit against a possible 330 individuals indefinitely to simply just stay away from the 2 zip codes.
>
> WHY DID WE FILE THIS CIVIL CASE
>
> The city attorney stated on the document filed that they filed on behalf of the citizens of Santa Barbara because the people in the areas of 93103 and 93101 are now forced to stay indoors for fear of being confronted, harassed, shot at, attacked or robbed and are forced to constantly alter their lives.
>
>   This includes all people that pass by the “safety zones” or work in them.
>
> HOW DO I ASK FOR CHANGES
>
> Getting involved means you turn in a declaration to the judge stating that you do not agree with (or agree with) the terms and conditions of the document and the reasons why.  You can do this as an individual, an agency, or a business. You must do this 60 days before the court hearing in march.You can contact:
>
> onevoiceonepower@gmail.comFor more may call and leave a msg at:
>
> 805-203-0439And we will help you get in contact with a legal intern that can help you do your declaration.
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

Saturday, November 5, 2011

A "demand letter" was sent to every judge in Atlanta demanding that they take action to expose the pervasive corruption or resign as a corrupt judge.. We need this here in Santa Barbara‏ as well.

William M. Windsor has sent a "demand letter" to every judge in Atlanta, Georgia. "I am demanding that they take action to expose the pervasive corruption or resign as a corrupt judge."

I just cannot believe the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office or County Law Enforcement. There is a clear act of conspiracy by those fore mentioned with what I am about to share.
This case is far to hot and I will say dangerous for me to get involved with. But it does have relevancy in regards to the fact that the SB D.A. and Law Enforcement are willing to commit crimes , sign phony documents, commit perjury,  in order to pick and chose who the punish with criminal offenses.



The next passage was taken from the bottom of page 8 of the attachment.(not shared on my blog) Where a County law enforcement officer admits to perjury in order to obtain a false conviction.
I Sergeant X. XXXXN #xxx58 had previously prepared a ruse affidavit. The ruse affidavit contained details of Two crimes for which XXXXXXO was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated. The ruse affidavit contained details regarding the robbery that occurred in Santa XXXXXX, as well as a home invasion robbery involving XXXXX XXXXX.

The next passage was taken from page three of the attachment lines 17,18, and 19.
When confronted about using a judge's signature on a signed warrant with an untruthful

affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, Sgt. Xxxxxn advised X, attorney for
the defendant, that he received his instructions to do so from the District Attorney's Office


All the collaboration by the criminal courts (Judges, D.A. and both police and sheriff) qualify as RICO Violations. We can use, Ricardo Juarez, Peter Lance, Gil Armijo and my false criminal charges as examples.





Windsor sends Corruption Admission Letter to Every Judge in Atlanta Georgia

Friday, 21 October 2011 15:46
William M. Windsor




arrington-marvin
William M. Windsor has sent a "demand letter" to every judge in Atlanta, Georgia.
I am demanding that they take action to expose the pervasive corruption or resign as a corrupt judge.
The response is expected to be deafening.
Judge Marvin S. Arrington (shown here) refused to even allow Windsor to speak in his courtroom when he was the Presiding Judge who is supposed to handle emergency matters....
So we know where Arrington stands!
I want every judge in town to know that I will not stop until every corrupt judge is exposed.  Perhaps if they know the corrupt judges are going to be exposed, any honest or would-be-honest judges will step up and do something.  I know it's a longshot because judges aren't honest, but it's worth a try.
Here's the letter that was sent Certified Mail, Return Receipt:
October 16, 2011
Judge _______
Fulton County Superior Court
185 Central Avenue, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Judge ________:

I am writing to you to inform you of a significant number of crimes committed in Fulton County, and to ask you to act on my information.  You have a duty to uphold the law.  You have an obligation under 18 U.S.C. 4 to report felonies that come to your attention.  Please get ready to report a lot, and please take action to stop the illegal acts taking place at the Fulton County Courthouse.

According to Judge Kelly Amanda Lee, you have received some communication about me from the federal courts and perhaps from Judge Jerry W. Baxter.  I am the man who is attempting to expose the massive corruption in the federal courts in Georgia and with the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney and the Office of the Clerk of the Fulton County Superior Court.  I am now adding Judge Baxter, Judge Cynthia Wright, Judge Marvin Arrington, and the Office of the County Attorney to the list of people who I feel are corrupt and who will be subject of criminal charges that I am presenting to grand juries.

If you have been told I am a nut, someone lied.  If you were told that I settled a case in federal court and this is sour grapes, someone lied.  I have significant evidence of crimes by many people.  The evidence is uncontroverted.  I believe the information that I have will expose the most shocking case of corruption in the history of our country.

I provide some background on myself to set the record straight.

I am just a fairly normal retired father and grandfather. I was born in Columbus 63 years ago, and we have lived in Atlanta since 2001. We moved to Fulton County to be near our daughter in anticipation that there would be grandchildren, and we have been rewarded with three granddaughters! I pay my taxes. We go to Peachtree Presbyterian Church. I’ve never been arrested or accused of committing a crime. I have never even had a traffic or parking ticket in Georgia. I have never used drugs of any type. I drive my granddaughter’s carpool one day a week. I’m as honest and law-abiding a citizen as you will meet.

Barbara and I have been married for 40 years. We have two wonderful children and two spectacular granddaughters.

I am best described as a serial entrepreneur. I have started over 50 companies in my 42-year career. I began my career as a junior at Texas Tech University in 1969.  I became involved in the T-shirt business, and after eight years as a retailer, wholesaler, and manufacturer, I launched the trade magazine and trade show for the industry in 1977.  I am considered by many to be the father of the multi-billion dollar "imprinted sportswear industry."  I started other magazines and shows, and sold the company in 1981.

I have owned and/or operated many magazines and trade shows, travel businesses, retail stores, manufacturing companies, printing company, typesetting business, advertising agency, marketing companies, convention services businesses, souvenir and gift businesses, tourist attractions, resort businesses,  music businesses, computer software company, a consulting company, a food franchise, internet businesses, and more.  I have written numerous articles, books, training programs, and manuals.  I have spoken at conferences and trade shows across North America and in Europe, Australia, and China.

From 1992 to 1996, I was President of Advanstar Expositions, a company owned at the time by Goldman Sachs.  Advanstar was one of the largest producers of trade shows and conferences in the world.  From 1996 to 2001, I was CEO of 1st Communications, a company owned by Bain Capital, Triumph Capital Group, and me.  (Mitt Romney was the Chairman of the Board.) 1st Communications made a series of multi-million dollar acquisitions to build one of the largest trade show businesses -- the largest in terms of the number of annual events.  1st Communications also developed one of the first online job and resume businesses using a network of over 1,000 web sites.  That business was sold to The Washington Post in 2001, and I "retired" to Atlanta, Georgia to be near grandchildren-to-be.

Not exactly the bio of your average lunatic.

I discovered corruption in the federal courts in Fulton County, Georgia, and I will not stop until the judges and others are exposed and other citizens are protected from the corrupt courts.  My friends will tell you that I am as tenacious as they come.

I always thought that courts were fair.  I always thought that judges were honest.  Sadly, I now know the truth.  I am told that most of the judges with the Fulton County Superior Court are dishonest or just plain corrupt.  I believe Judge Baxter, Judge Lee, and Judge Wright are corrupt.  I know Judge Arrington is at the very least a man without proper concern for the law.

If you are an honest judge, now is the time for you to step up.  I am sure the honest judges (if they exist) have been unwilling to disclose the corrupt and dishonest acts of their fellow judges.  Well, the days of keeping all these dirty little secrets have passed.  I am going to work for the rest of my life to expose all the corruption in the courts in Fulton County.

I know that judges regularly commit criminal acts while hiding behind their robes.  I have been contacted by many thousands of people since I set up a website to expose the corruption.  I now believe that the corruption affects most litigants.

As a child, I was taught that there is a final authority in our society to whom we can turn in case we are seriously wronged.  How naïve I was.

Judicial corruption is made invisible to citizens, because lawyers are trained and motivated to deny it.   Lawyers certainly don’t inform their clients of the rampant legal and judicial corruption.  Lawyers don’t speak against judges, on whom they depend for income stability and success, and often aspire to be judges.  They do not criticize law practice and precedent, which they are selected and trained to accept regardless of validity, and which they could not otherwise use successfully.  The mass media is silent because they and their advertisers are big businesses who enjoy judicial prejudice in their favor.  Non-lawyers find it hard to obtain the facts without prohibitive cost and effort, and because the infantile myth of judicial salvation has broad appeal and is propagated as an opiate by the mass media.
I have amassed a great deal of proof.  I have discovered most of the tricks of the corrupt judges.  I enclose a paper that I have written called “How Judges Commit Crimes.”  If I missed a few techniques, please let me know.

I charge Orinda D. Evans with the following crimes:

RICO; Theft by Deception -- O.C.G.A. 16-8-3; False Statements to State – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Witness Tampering – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Violation of Rights to Due Process; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I charge William S. Duffey, Jr. with the following crimes:

RICO; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, AND O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Witness Tampering – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Violation of Rights to Due Process; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

I charge Joel F. Dubina, Rosemary Barkett, Edward Earl Carnes, James Larry Edmondson, Frank M. Hull, Stanley Marcus, William H. Pryor, Jr., Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Susan H. Black, and Charles R. Wilson with the following crimes:

RICO; Theft by Deception -- O.C.G.A. 16-8-3; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, AND O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Violation of Rights to Due Process; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I charge Carl Hugo Anderson, Esq. with the following crimes:

RICO; False Statements to State – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-20; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Witness Tampering – Violation of O.C.G.A. 16-10-93.

I charge Sally Quillian Yates, Esq. and Christopher Huber with the following crimes:

RICO; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Jury Tampering – 18 U.S.C. 1504; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

I charge James N. Hatten with the following crimes:

RICO; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice; Violation of Rights to Due Process; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

I charge Thomas Woodrow Thrash with the following crimes:

RICO; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, AND O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Subornation of Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, O.C.G.A. 16-10-72, and O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Violation of Rights to Due Process; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

I charge Amy Totenberg with the following crimes:

RICO; Mail Fraud – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; False Swearing – Making False Statements – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; Perjury – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, AND O.C.G.A. 16-10-70; Conspiracy to Defraud United States -- 18 U.S.C. § 371; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

I charge Paul Howard, Jr., Rebecca Keel, Cynthia Nwokocha, Naomi Fudge, Waverly Settles, Deputy Sheriff Betts, Deputy Sheriff Roye, and Deputy Sheriff English with the following crimes:

Jury Tampering -- O.C.G.A. 16-10-93; Tampering with Evidence – O.C.G.A. 16-10-94; Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; Jury Tampering – 18 U.S.C. 1504; RICO; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

I charge Judge Jerry W. Baxter, Judge Kelly Amanda Lee, Judge Cynthia Wright, Judge Stephanie Davis, R. David Ware, Al Clark, Shae Alexander, and unknown others with the Office of the Clerk of the Fulton County Superior Court with the following crimes:

Obstruction of Justice -- 18 U.S.C. § 1503; RICO; Violation of rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; Misprision of Felonies – 18 U.S.C. § 4. 

I suspect that the grand jury investigation will lead to charges against some or all of these people: Julie E. Carnes, Steve C. Jones, Timothy C. Batten, Clarence Cooper, J. Owen Forrester, Willis B. Hunt, Harold L. Murphy, William C. O’Kelley, Charles A. Pannell, Marvin H. Shoob, Richard W. Story, G. Ernest Tidwell, Robert L. Vining, Horace T. Ward, Janet F. King, Susan S. Cole, Alan J. Baverman, Gerrilyn G. Brill, C. Christopher Hagy, Linda T. Walker, Walter E. Johnson, E. Clayton Scofield, Russell G. Vineyard, James C. Hill, Beverly B. Martin, Peter T. Fay, Phyllis A. Kravitch, R. Lanier Anderson, Emmett Ripley Cox, Anniva Sanders, Joyce White, Beverly Gutting, Margaret Callier, B. Grutby, Douglas J. Mincher, Jessica Birnbaum, Vicki Hanna, John Ley, and Unknown Others.

I have a lot of proof, and most of it is detailed in the Dockets in Civil Action 1:06-CV-0714-ODE, 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, and 1:09-CV-02027-WSD, 1:11-CV-01922-TWT, 1:11-CV-01923-TWT, 1:11-CV-02027-TWT, 1:11-CV-02326-TWT, and in Supreme Court Actions Nos. 10-411, 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690.

This link to my Verified Complaint begins to tell the story of corruption at the Fulton County Courthouse (2011CV206243) --  http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=488:judge-jerry-w-baxter-sets-october-7-2011-hearing-on-windsors&catid=120:news-reports&Itemid=222

If you would like an email with links to the complete set of documents filed in this case, please just have someone on your staff email me at bill@LawlessAmerica.com.

I sat outside the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office with two copy paper cases filled with 164 exhibits that the Grand Jury asked me to bring to present to them.  But the DA and his staff blocked me from ever seeing the Grand Jury to provide the evidence they requested, information that included charges against the DA.  Then the DA’s staff banned me from three floors in the courthouse under threat of a bogus Criminal Trespass Warning.  I have been threatened with arrest by Deputy Sheriffs if I ever even speak to a grand juror.  I have audio tapes and even a video!

I have never done anything wrong, and every word I have ever spoken is the truth.  I will take a polygraph test anywhere anytime.

Judge Baxter and the Office of the Clerk of the Court have now conspired to block my filing of anything.  I can’t file a motion for a new trial or an appeal or anything.  Judge Baxter violated a massive number of rules and laws in a Kangaroo Court that would make Judge Roy Bean proud.

But Judge Baxter is still a beginner compared to the crimes committed by the federal judges.  They will do anything to stop me, perhaps even including having me killed.  There is a federal prisoner who claims he was approached about killing me and another Georgia man who is also fighting government corruption.

I know that you are well aware of the corruption.  If you are corrupt, you should resign.  If you are honest or somewhat honest, now is the time to act.

I can meet with you anywhere anytime to present my evidence.  If there happen to be a few honest judges, may I suggest that you all get together and meet with me at one time.  We can do it secretly, and I will never disclose who met with me unless forced to do so in court.  Please call me.  I carry my cell phone at all times.

Sincerely,



William M. Windsor
bill@LawlessAmerica.com

William M. Windsor


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