DUI Case Swerves Off the Map

Sickening behavior....and a very dangerous precedent. I can imagine the tragic result of future court-shy officers looking the other way on future DUI's, afraid that someone will discover they are human.

This guy, Peter Lance, got caught drunk driving, and now he's pissed. He's pissed not at himself for doing such an idiotic thing as driving drunk, but at the officer who was doing her job looking for drunk driving jackasses like himself. To compound things, he uses The Santa Barbara News-Press (not even good enough for toilet paper) as his own personal forum to plead his case. Hey Peter Lance, be accountable for your own actions!

I'm trying very hard not to be cynical about this, but it's not easy. You have to use whatever defense you think will get you off, of course, even if it depends on a self-serving piece of journalism.

I think the most important question here is whether Beutel is dirty or not. The police MUST all be above suspicion, (but not above independent investigation) and the supporting testimony that Lance provided for his articles is positively alarming. I do not wanted armed thugs with badges in this town, county, state, or country. Question for those most concerned about the NP publishing the articles - what did you think of the Pentagon Papers?

The judge, Eskin, has let this case slip away from the relevant. Sloppy and stupid, that.

And JohnLocke's attempt to compare the NYTimes publishing the Pentagon Papers (an official government study and history of the Vietnam War) with the News-Press's publishing of Peter Lance's series on DUI procedures in Santa Barbara would be laughable if not so ignorant.

Credibility should have no boundaries when its application involves an officer of the law. Sometimes the avenue to justice takes an odd course...maybe even the arrest of a "journalist" will bring to light the mis-deeds of those who are employed to protect us.

The Newspressmess Terrorists have won.

Appeasement and bargaining only encourages more acts of terror.

brimo7272:
"...maybe even the arrest of a "journalist" will bring to light the mis-deeds of those who are employed to protect us."

Two words:

Travis ... Armstrong

"Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.""

More studies and citations:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articl...

Police misconduct can ONLY be exposed by those arrested. Miranda was a rapist/murderer. Miranda v. Arizona led to Miranda warnings.

Rodney King was arrested.

Who else has their rights violated by police than people arrested?

The local constabulary reaps significant fiscal rewards from DUI arrests as does the government.

If a police officer clearly committed bankruptcy fraud based on public records which we all can access, we need to see what the hiring standards are.

If someone is dishonest, the defense is entitled to that information by law and it is public record.

I have a case right now in which the DA is using fermented blood. Blood with artificial alcohol from bad storage to harm my client.

Unbelievable.

The DA has not even interviewed the witnesses that were with my client the entire night.

The DA is just running with cases without considering other issues.

Breathalyzers can be manipulated. So can any test.

Brimo: "Credibility should have no boundaries when its application involves an officer of the law. Sometimes the avenue to justice takes an odd course...maybe even the arrest of a "journalist" will bring to light the mis-deeds of those who are employed to protect us." I couldn't agree more.

Every single chromatogram they have shows FERMENTATION and I have about 20 cases.
Santa Barbara Crime Lab has MAJOR BLOOD TESTING PROBLEMS.

The DA's office fought me oonn getting the data from their runs of all the samples.

It is only in the subject samples.

It is a DIRTY LAB!!!!

We need to get to the bottom of this urgently.

The blood results are all lies.

There is a serious problem in there system.

Judge for yourself:
For anyone interested, I shall forward the 43 page certified court reporter's transcript of the Batalas hearing referred to above. So far I have forwarded it to six respondents. Make your own judgment based on the certified words of Beutel herself, importantly including questions that she wouldn't answer, the frivolous "relevance" objections, inter alia, of the shyster DDA himself, and probably most hilariously, Judge Eskin, himself. Just email me at:
cmganschow@gmail.com
My favorite response came from a recondite matron herself:
"Oh. My. God. You know, Michael, my husband and I have been married a very long time. I would tell you when our anniversary is so you could send us a card or some other form of good wishes, but it appears that KNOWING WHEN I GOT F***ING MARRIED CALLS FOR AN IMPROPER LEGAL CONCLUSION. J**** H. Chr***. ( I am an atheist but rely heavily on Christianity when swearing.)"

Michael Ganschow

I have blood tests from the Santa Barbara crime lab on DUI cases and all the data.

I have more formal education in Forensics and Science than anyone at that lab.

There lab has a serious problem.

The blood tests they run are all flawed and contaminated and it looks like there is a huge yeast contamination problem and the blood is converted to alcohol.

This makes the blood volume go down and the alcohol level go up. So it goes up twice as fast.

The Santa Barbara crime lab does NOT use ANY QUALITY CONTROLS AT ALL.

Quality controls can only help the defendant so they don't do it.

They cannot be trusted.

The DAs do NOT care who is innocent.

The lab people lie blatantly and do not care who they screw over.

Doctor Dui:

I hear you, but, please maintain so that we can trust you: "there", the locational adverb, cannot ever be conflated with the third person plural genitive (possessive) case of the pronoun "they". Period.

Doctor Dre and Doctor Pepper, inter alia, know as much.

CMG

Y'all:

Don't worry. Okorie has the bit kernels at hand to reconstitute items nine through twelve.
I hate it when I post 10 of my most 14 persuasive points and they go missing like socks in the dryer.
I have a theory about the socks and stuff, but it involves nine spatial dimensions and two time dimensions.
email me for the details.

CMG

The DrDUI poster is an LA attorney with no connection to this case or to Nance's case. Posted a bunch of comments on the LA Times piece on the Nance article. Looking for business or what?

Journalistic integrity. We wouldn't even be hearing about this alleged corruption if it were not for this arrest of this obviously biased journalist and his lazy publisher the S.B. NewsPress. Clearly we are in an era of systemic corruption. So what else is going on out there that isn't being reported on because the victim wasn't a journalist.

So that is why we ask questions. Like, does anyone know how it is that council member Dale Francisco supports himself in lovely Santa Barbara; while Francisco, the technology expert, aspiring cellist and clinically lay promotes electro-shock therapy in a discussion on homelessness.

Good God, McD, you're STILL on your Francisco kick? Obsess much?

Again I say, IF the cop is dirty I don't much care how the data came out. IF the cop is dirty I want her off the street, off the force, and in jail. Just for the moment drop your SBNP hate campaign and think about how YOU would feel if YOU were arrested and charged by a lying, forging, gun-toting thug with a badge.

I despise the Newspress as much as I despise crooked cops.

I don't know what to think!

Corruption and cronyism in the SBPD? Who would've thought?

It's not just their obsessions with Francisco and Self that go beyond the rational (-; Apparently these guys see no problem with dirty cops if it was an article in the NP that exposes them.

Interestingly, this article shows that Beutel may already have been neutralized. If all of her cases result in mistrial, then she will have become completely ineffective (which is good if she's dirty, bad if she's not). All the more reason for an independent investigation and public airing of the resulting findings.

The un-enlightened pseudonym JohnLocke, the one with fluffy shirts and frilly long silver wigs, is one to speak of obsession. jfklbj is just overly obsessed with initials.

But the point about this ongoing saga relayed in this article is that it just points out corruption at all levels. The "media" (Lance) is possibly just p.o.'d for being busted while doing one of the most common and serious crimes of our time, and should have known better. So blow lots of smoke where there is fire and you get off.

The arresting officer was possibly hired as part of some quota, not that she shouldn't be hired but as noted in a previous column was given as pass compared to a male counterpart with lesser questionable personal problems. There may have been some CYA by the arresting officer in other cases but that does not mean that a CYA takes place in every case including the Lance case.

What is interesting to me is that the Police is promoting their self serving foundation solicitation on the TV/LCD following a series of "On Patrol" episodes that are pocked with at least a few flubs and follies (or bad editing) and yet no one seems to mind because of the otherwise great job that the SBPD seems to be doing.

Really, a public relations store produced show, sponsored by local businesses, interjecting a "this is my town" campaign, and followed up by a still photo of a contributing local couple; isn't this all reminiscent of the "Sheriffs' Council."? How obviously corrupt do you want to get before you understand that we have systemic problems, including 'the public.'

What is also striking to me after watching many episodes of "On Patrol" is that there seems to be this silly reliance on this mystically empowered female officer who is the only expert at determining DUIs. If she ever takes a vacation do the dopey male officers just throw up there hands and let every suspected DUI go.

p.s. If Dale Francisco would ever offer up a public explanation in a campaign video while promoting his candidacy as to how he supports his leisurely Santa Barbara lifestyle while unemployed, then I would stop asking the question.

Here's to hoping Peter Lance receives the full measure of the law in his personally irresponsible and indefensible DUI burp-n-drive.

Lance has NOT proven his case in his turd-flinging campaign against Officer Beutel. Not by a long shot. (Fox News
viewers might disagree). He has only demonstrated that he has a recalcitrant little brat driving his so-called professionalism.

Murdoch McCaw and Peter Lance sit together like vultures surveying our local field for whatever living thing they can begin feeding on, responsible journalism be damned. It would be laughable were it not utterly reprehensible.

We can all look forward more incessant whining by Lance with the full backing grace of McCaw as his own trial commences. Should be fun and a wellspring of comedy fodder.

While no one supports or wants a crooked cop on the beat, we will not stand either for a freelancing dooshbozo masquerading as a journalist.

McD, I chose the pseudonym John Locke to demonstrate support for maximum individual freedom and responsibility and minimal government And yes I am obsessed with those concepts and with the need for an independent investigation of alleged thuggery by the police. And why do you not demand full financial accountability from ALL elected officials?

Beutel's amazing arrest tally is consistent with either a super-cop or a skull-dugger, but nothing in-between. Consequently, an independent inquiry ought to render a quick and easy determination beyond any doubt.

Will she fight an investigation? That would be an early give-away! (But not the earliest if "commitment ceremonies" for marriageable couples are as common as hens' teeth.)

If SBPD goes all Nixonian on us, then they should at least placate the hoi polloi by putting video cameras on all units... at long last! (Uh, why NOT???)

For all you drunks and stoners who think that you can hide behind a couple of billion parts per million of blood alcohol level or some bogus study that says that driving stoned is actually safer (puleeeez!), crooked cops are the least of your problems. In fact a crooked cop would take a bribe and let your sorry drunk ass go. This may be a zealous cop (to which I say hear, hear) but she is not crooked in the traditional "on-the-take" manner. All of you shyster attorneys who defend these alcoholic reprobates and get them off on part per billion and arresting officer process screw up technicalities should be ashamed of yourselves. And all you drunks, get off the road.

Whew!

Above is expressed ample enough overwhelming, uninformed vitriol, spew and animus to gag a gargoyle. I suggest that the respondents focus on the article at hand, which is about a particular court hearing: People. v. Batalas, in which SBPD police officer Kasi Beutel was supposed to be questioned about her previous sworn statements, according to the initial ruling of the judge, George Eskin, about which the defense alleged it had documentary evidence were false. A considered read of the transcript of that hearing patently demonstrates Beutel's concerted efforts to not answer any question, the DDA Horowitz's equally concerted efforts to block all the questions, and Judge Eskin's patently irrational, nonsensical support for the obfuscation of Beutel and Horowitz. Quickly, the judge, Georgie Porgie Eskin, intervened to overrule his own initial ruling that inquiry was relevant about prior sworn statements, that the defense was prepared to introduce evidence clearly establishing were false.

If you think the above characterization is a biased representation of what was actually said at the hearing, just email me and I shall provide the certified court reporter's transcription of all words spoken by all participants for your personal, actual, consideration.

cmganschow@gmail.com

Until you are sufficiently informed by the available and certified facts, please go quietly to a place in which you are comfortable, and change your diaper.

Be informed, read it, and put up or shut up, now and anon. Yes I'm talkin' to you:

azuresees
waz
DonMcDermott
Draxor
Eckermann

Who among youse respondents has actually read the transcript, so as to at least be informed with actual facts, i.e., by the words spoken? Remember, I shall send it to youse so that youse are, at least, acquainted with the actual words that are the subject of yousers' responding words.

Until then, bask in yousers' comfortable and communal ignorance.

Michael Ganschow

zwoirle; Sorry if you are frustrated. And thanks for the offer but I am not in the courtroom and so therefore I do not care at this time to assess the "facts." I am more interested in the general flavor of this conversation and the underlying issues. But I do get your determination and point about "Beutel's concerted efforts to not answer any question." But the transcripts may mean something, or nothing. But because I am not in the courtroom I do not know anything. The determination is the job of the judge or jury and I have no control over that. I am scheduled for duty later in the month. I will be very attentive at that time, if selected.

Typical of McD not to be concerned about facts. Opinions are so much more fun.

If anyone understands and rejoices in the joys of fact-free opinion, that definitely is JohnLocke.

Eckermann, "puhleez" is not a very logical argument.

I actually posted several studies that were performed in countries all over the world. In most cases the studies were specifically meant to test the amount of danger that driving with cannabis causes. They found that people who are more relaxed behind the wheel and are trying to compensate for being in a relaxed state by paying closer attention actually drive more safely than your average person who is more stressed and energised, most of whom are on the legal drug caffeine. They tend to drive more aggressively and this leads to more accidents.

Sorry, that's just the way those studies went, and personally that has been my experience as well.

Zwoirle, I actually do not care about irrelevant questions being ask the arresting officer. The only relevant question is: Was the defendent stoned while driving. If yes, he should be punished in a way the provides an incentive for him to change his immoral behavior. Loonpt, have you ever driven stoned? To my everlasting shame, I have. Being stoned does not make you a better driver - trust me on this. While stoned there are too many things other than concentrating on the road that can capture your attention and that will capture your attention if stimulating enough. This is a dangerous situation. People screw up driving enough while totally sober, we do not need a bunch of stoners driving around focusing on music, the temperature in the car, the pen rolling back and forth on the dash board, and the funny guy in the back seat telling a very droll story. Sorry Loonpt, pot makes you a worse driver not a better one.

1. prosecuting Deputy District Attorney Sanford Horowitz, who argued that Makler’s questions were “irrelevant”

2. the DDA Horowitz's equally concerted efforts to block all the questions, and Judge Eskin's patently irrational, nonsensical support for the obfuscation of Beutel and Horowitz.

Prosecutors clients are not the police. Prosecutors should not help lying police cover up their lies.

Horowitz should be investigating Beurtel.

Instead Horowitz is wreaking havoc with the lies of Beutel.

Amazingly, he used to work for the IRS

Adjunct Professor of Law

Sanford Horowitz is a Deputy District Attorney with the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office. Prior to that, he was a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. In that capacity, he investigated criminal violations of federal law including tax evasion, tax fraud, money laundering, Bank Secrecy Act, and asset forfeiture. He has been a guest speaker for the Criminal Tax Fraud, Tax Litigation, and Federal Tax Procedure courses in the LLM tax program at the University of San Diego School of Law. Mr. Horowitz wrote a paper on tax reform to Innocent Spouse Relief, “Tax Court Jurisdiction and Equitable Relief under Sections 6015(f) and 66(c),” which was published in Tax Notes Today. Mr. Horowitz received his BS in Accounting from California State University Long Beach. He received his JD and LLM from the University of San Diego School of Law.
Fall 2011 Classes

* Taxation of Anti-Money Laundering

'If SBPD goes all Nixonian on us, then they should at least placate the hoi polloi by putting video cameras on all units... at long last! (Uh, why NOT???)"

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2011 at 9:44 a.m

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming...

What's next for these low level 'conservatives' putting people on trial outside of a courtroom; tar and feathers. Would the real enlightened and conservative John Adams please stand up (not that our channeled commenter isn't doing a bad job.) I do agree about the installation of 360 % cameras though.

zwoirle: Verbose wind bag! Give the thesaurus a rest!

Totally flawed messenger brought this story out, interesting the officer now has her own attorney representing her at this time however which to me is a buried lead in the story.

Eckermann, nobody is going to force you to drive stoned. If you don't feel comfortable driving, then you shouldn't do it whether you are sober, tired, or whatever state you may be in.. Nobody should. That's actually one of the major distinctions between alcohol and cannabis, and why I generally defend driving under the influence of cannabis (but not always). When people drink, they often become overly confident and think they are 'ok' to drive when they really aren't. With cannabis it is the opposite. Newer users especially will feel like they can't drive, and won't, when in reality many of them would probably be fine because just the mere fact that they think they aren't good enough to drive will over compensate by driving more carefully. Alcohol changes the viscosity of your inner ears which causes you to lose balance and drive all over the road. Cannabis doesn't do anything like that, and once you are used to it, it doesn't affect your motor skills or reaction time (hence many professional athletes perform on cannabis, and older kids who play video games love the stuff and often outperform sober gamers). It also helps some people focus more, not less, on the task at hand. This is why many people with ADD benefit from cannabis.

Another thing people don't consider is that toking is like drinking in that you can be in a situation where you barely feel the effects or you can be completely inebriated. Most people are usually somewhere in the middle.

That said I've been toking daily for the last 10 years. I didn't drive stoned for the first few months because I didn't feel comfortable doing it. Eventually I tried it during a sunrise driving of a group of us in the dorms down to a taping of "The Price is Right". After that I did it very rarely and was still always careful to make sure I hadn't had too much. Within a couple years, my friends and I were taking week long road trips, passing the bong around the car while the person in shotgun gave the driver the customary milking so the driver can take a quick rip without taking their attention off the road.

There are plenty of full time stoners in this town, and if driving under the influence of cannabis was an issue it would have come up by now. However I'd be willing to wager that they are some of the safest drivers around.

Loonpt, while I have not smoked pot for over thirty years, when I was much younger it was a daily habit. Not only that but it was a daily habit of about everybody with whom I socialized. My experience was the exact opposite of yours. I saw enought lack-of-attention auto accidents and near misses in those days to last me for a lifetime. I am ashamed that I participated in such a risky (not to mention illegal) activity. I am lucky that I did not kill someone or myself with such stupidity and bad judgment. Please do not smoke pot and drive. It is only a matter of time when you will space out for just a second and potentially harm yourself or some innocent fellow driver on the road.

Waz:

Waz it the "change your diaper" bit that got you all riled about them thesauruses, big and fossilized as they are?

Zwoirle

No. I just hate arrogant idiots.

A bigger splash will occur because of the verified misconduct against police officer Kasi Beutel and the double-dealing by Judge George C. Eskin in declaring a mistrial. Double-dealing because of five-day expose by Sir Peter Lance? A fact, the DA’s office has persecuted in the media the King of Pop – Michael Joseph Jackson; Dudley wrote an extensive novel about someone she prosecuted; and the entire DA’s building creatively worked on “ALPHA DOG” in Jesse James Hollywood case. Was there a “mis-trial afforded to these Defendants”? Lance’s article is a memo, in comparison, to full-lawyer artistic productions that can be verified from this extremely many documentary expose or pieces from the DA’s and all the news coverage prior and during trials! For whom does Judge Eskin give favorable legal partiality to, in order, to shield from illuminating Beutel’s questionable credibility? She is not the defendant nor the plaintiff but a “primary witness”, so Batalas should walk free of charges, so for whom does the law shield and protect? I read the Batalas transcript and common and reasonable sense would make anyone realize that even Judge Eskin was annoyed with Beutel’s conferring with her liawyer Charles Goldwasser (SBN#61298) to avoid perjury charges and finally a “real mistrial” for covering-up a unprofessional cop. It is important because of Beutel’s integrity is crucial in ensuring anyone of the 700+ Seven-Hundred Plus previous arrest has somewhat of a fair trial or judicial outcome that is just and not legally and literally one-sided against all previous arrestees that might not have been afforded proper legal procedure of arrest, thus her creating this incredulous D.U.I. statistical achievement! She has asked publically to be checked in the eye of the Court and in the eye of Public Opinion. Why is this important to me is because Officer Beutel fabricated a false arrest with Aaron Tudor and _.Fortuna on 03252011@00:18 a.m. for false D.U.I. arrest. Today, SBPD has not investigated my personal compliant/grievance against said officers for going on a “fishing expedition”, 8 different sobriety tests and on the threats of violence and electrocution of a 50,000 Volt Taser was from a forced extractation of 10 Milliliters of my life’s essence, mi sangre de vida! This personal grievance was filed with SBPD on 04072011 about noon time against Officer Kasi M. Beutel, Aaron Tudor, and _. Fortuna. Yes, there is a bigger civic legal splash that will occur in this lovely City of Santa Barbara, 93101 de Cruzito H. Cruz on 07142011@09:39 a.m.

Y’all:
Pledges are the current rage.
I submit for your subscription, the following pledge:
“If it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that Kasi Beutel attempted to suborn false information about the date of her marriage to Todd Beutel, or requested an alteration of an official marriage document, for her economic benefit, or spousal and/or child support benefit, or to benefit her to obtain child custody in the Beutel divorce, or for any other economic or personal advantage,
I hereby pledge that I will shut the f*** up about her unproven trustworthiness or veracity.”

I hereby so pledge upon the graves of my eight great, great grand-mothers,

Signed,
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please submit your signed pledges to me at: cmganschow@gmail.com

All y'all:

Following, you can meet Peter Lance up close and personally, over an hour interview, and get the latest on Brian Hill's gag order:

http://video.sbchannels.tv/video/1090...

Michael Ganschow

Not much of a pledge, since the standard for determining a criminal defendant's guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not by a preponderance of the evidence.

waz, you are incorrect. Beyond a shadow of a doubt would result in most criminals going free, as juries often struggle with the current standard.

The proof standard for the criminal courts is beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

The instructions in California are "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."

I like the clearer explanation in the Federal Courts: "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs."

Per Richie Brockelman yet again:

The thing of it is, is:

When she gets comfortable with gaming the system, to the tune of $200,000 in defaulted credit card debt, twenty-four defaulted credit cards (24), and $270,000 in a 2nd bankruptcy homestead (a no-no), the pattern begins to take shape. When she herself gets out of shape: http://www.chli.com/wellness_connecti...
she again games the media.
When she herself decides to advertise her 1997 medieval wedding ceremony and have someone pay to decorate her/Todd's homesteaded home (remember there should only be one) accordingly:
http://www.hgtv.com/designers-challen...

Oops! She now has decided that she didn't actually get married on May 31, 1997 in that medieval-themed ceremony, attested to above and nicely decorated-for. It would negatively impact the two bankruptcy filings, don't ya know.

Peter Lance has not fabricated the above facts; they are documented as above and in his published articles.

Any dispassionate observer can see the pattern of irresponsibility, dishonesty, self-aggrandizement, and lieing; the facts that several documents were executed under penalty of perjury in both federal and state court elevate the lies to perjury. What Peter Lance has undertaken is to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s upon the demonstrated character of Kasi Beutel as a pathologic predator.

Stay tuned. The best is yet to come. The fat lady has not sung so far. It shouldn't be a long wait.

Michael Ganschow

binky: Sorry, I meant beyond a reasonable doubt. Long day yesterday, you don't have to explain it. Still, my point is the same.

All y’all:
So, while the fat lady has not yet entered the courtroom in the prosecution of Peter Lance, the minister who married Kasi Beutel has now sworn to her animated and directed efforts to persuade him to falsify (forge) the Los Angeles marriage certificate that he had certified and filed. He certified the marriage and filed the certified marriage certificate in 1999. He has now filed a sworn declaration stating that she called him in 2005 as her divorce from Todd Beutel was imminent; she implored him to backdate the marriage certificate that he had filed six years before so that she could receive more “child support.”
O.K. Child support is not a function of the length of the marriage in California, nor does it even require a marriage; nobody claims that Ms Beutel is bright or forthcoming. On the other hand, in California, spousal support, specifically the length the paying spouse is bound to support the other in the style he or she has become accustomed to, is generally a function of the period of the marriage, specifically for half the length of a “short marriage”, i.e. one of less than 10 years duration. Inferences about using her children are probably obvious.
Please read the sworn declaration of Thomas James, the minister who both presided over the gala and very expensive medieval/Renaissance marriage ceremony in 1997, and who also presided over the more humble ceremony in 1999.
Please email me at cmganschow@gmail.com for a pdf copy of Reverend James’ sworn and filed declaration.
As I receive other filed public records, e.g., the divorce declarations in which Ms Beutel documents prior fraud by Mr. Beutel and her, I shall make them similarly available.
Stay tuned.

Michael Ganschow

All Y,all:

So, have all y'all settled on an estimate of just which and how many specified felonies Ms Beutel committed in 2005 when she attempted to inveigle Reverend James and his seamstress-wife to back-date/forge Reverend James' certified document that he filed in 1999 certifiedly legitimizing the second Beutel wedding, as opposed to the 1997 version, the admitted-by-all faux ceremony/non-marriage?

I suggest you consult the prosecution expert, Sanford Horowitz, deputy district attorney for the County of Santa Barbara. I guarantee that he, as a public servant, i.e. the dedicated county employee, sworn to attend you as your servant, will be happily forthcoming in answering all questions about Kasi Beutel's past record of lying, forgery, perjury, etc. I understand he familiarly answers to the name "Sandy".

Please respond directly here as to his cogent, forthcoming analyses. We all can do with a good laugh nowadays.

If you can't figure it out, or if you simply want the truth, I am informed that you can spend a buck, check your egos at the bus depot, and simply buy Saturday's News Press to find Peter Lance's fully documented answer to the questions. I might not, but you could.

Michael Ganschow

zwoirle: Todd and Kasi are both police officers making roughly the same amount of money, give or take. She was gainfully employed for the entirety of their marriage, and she is still gainfully employed. The liklihood that she will receive any spousal support is about nil. Your spousal support conspiracy theory is bunk.

Todd is a police officer?? Since when?? The public record has it that he was once a CPA making $20,000 a month. I guess, if you're right, he tired of all that money. Get your facts straight, waz.