Page 2 of 4
Posted on August 14 at 9:05 p.m.
On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing
Posted on August 10 at 6:35 p.m.
No to the first question. What part of "material" didn't you understand?
No to the second question. That is a 'non sequitor'.
No to the third question. You know what a People v. West plea bargin is, and even if you did not, it was explained to you in a recent post above.
No to the fourth question. It is also a 'non sequtior'.You don't. No, and guessing on such matters is never wise.As to question about getting an Okay: Not relevent, for reasons stated above. The only big deal here is how much you think of yourself. You are a legend in your own mind.
Stop misdirecting. Don't focus upon the messenger. Don't try and make 'ad homien' attacks upon me.. Just focus upon the serious allegations leveled against Beutel. If you have hard documentation to refute any of these allegations, (as opposed to your word crafted smoke and mirrors, I'm sure Officer Beutel would like you to provide it.
When are you going to directly address the following questions, including but not limited to: 1) Did Kasi Beutel commit BK Fraud? 2) Did She commit perjury when signing her Divorce pleadings? 3) Did she suborn perjury of the Minister and his wife? 4) Did she commit PERJURY IN THIS CASE in signing the DS 367 form under wherein she falsely stated that Lance made an illegal turn (when the officers who witnessed driving said 'no way'? 5) Did Kasi Beutel forge Peter's signature, and file a false police report.
Posted on August 10 at 8:09 a.m.
Quotes for the day, and then I'm off to court (for the whole day, which is why I won't see or respond to anything for the next 6 - 12 hours):
''It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."--- Upton Sinclair; and "You never know how much a man can't remember until he's called as a witness."---Will Rogers
"Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." Schopenauer
Posted on August 10 at 6:47 a.m.
Hey, I have an idea to test the accuracy of one of ITK's most recent claimed "facts":
Any of you can call Anne C. Nudson, Deputy District AttorneySanta Barbara County 312-D E. Cook Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 Phone: (805) 346-7540 Fax: (805) 346-7588 and ask her if it is anywhere near correct to say reducing a .12/.12 to a non alcohol related 'DRY' reckless and at the same time to stipulate to a court trial where the citizen accused is found NOT GUILTY is considered to be a routine, or standard practice? Or call Judge Kay Kuns in Department 7 and ask her.
Why is this important? Because ITK repeatedly represents that such a settlement is the usual occurrence. If that is proveably false then does it not logically follow that other ITK 'facts' which ITK has posted here might also be proveably false?
In fact, ITK should tell us all why if that deal is the every day deal, why has DDA Sandy Horowitz never offered that deal? If he had, the case would have settled a long time ago.
Surely ITK is not confused about the obvious difference between a Wet (alcohol related) reckless (CVC 23103 per CVC 23103.5) and a Dry (not related to alcohol) garden variety reckless driving charge. ITK must also understand the difference between a dismissal (CPC 1385) of CVC 23152b and an Acquital since the former dismissal has no affect upon the Previous DMV ruling that the driver was over .08 (the administrative DUI "conviction" whereas per CVC 13353.5e an "Acquittal" erases the DMV finding?
This is just one proof that ITK is not truthful or honest in postings.
ITK knows that there is a jury instruction that says: "if you find that a witness willfully lied about a material fact, you should distrust their testimony, and you can if you wish disregard their entire testimony."
So to here: if you find that ITK lied about a material representation, you should distrust what ITK says, and it is your reasonable right to disregard everything ITK posts.
Posted on August 9 at 4:09 p.m.
Sorry I took so long to get to a computer, but I was in Santa Maria court on a DUI Case number 135*4*6 (You can guess the two numbers if you want to look it up). It started as a DUI with test results of one and a half times the legal limit (.12) and ended with Dismissal of the DUI (23152a) court trial NG on count two (23152b) and a nolo plea to an added count three of DRY reckless (as in Not related to alcohol). Of course by one of your previous posts you would classify this as a loss to my record - 'whatever'!
Anyway: No more fencing with you here for me. (I'm taking some of the board contributors good advice. Thanks LegendaryYeti.) I told you once and now I tell you finally: I can come to you, or you can come to me and we can debate privately and in person. You pick.
You wish to preserve the unpreservable, I care not. Let the others believe I do not know what you know I know.
Further: Something big is blowing in the wind and I know what it is, but wonder if you could live up to your board name in that regard, or are you "NotInTheKnow".
Over and out.
Posted on August 9 at 3:02 a.m.
C'mon ITK, you know the answer to why she would forge, even though that would create an opportunity to be caught:"stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump). You of all people "know" the age old cop adage: "we don't catch everyone, just the dumb ones." And then there is the old Lenny Bruce quote: "if cops had brains, they'd be lawyers" (which LB meant as a slam to both, but you knew that too, cause you are ITK).
The reason Corbett handled it by writing "verbally advised" and KB forged was because Corbett is smarter than Beutel.
Lastly, you confuse handwriting analysis, which allows the experts to opine whether the signature is consistent or not with the known originals, and examination of the original document for palm prints which can tell WHO the forger was.
And you STILL have not addressed the perjury, and other allegations. You just keep harping away on other issues. Nice misdirection. Keep up the good work, as though it matters.
Posted on August 8 at 1:22 p.m.
Email from Beutel herself stating 331, yet SBPD responded with a lower number on the FOIA/CPRA request. Language I adopted in making the request was the exact language from email sent to KB from CHP Officer Win Smith soliciting the information. He dictated what qualified, and I asked for it in HIS language.
If ITK sends me his email, I will send him the email from WS and KB
On Police Officer Demands Retraction
Posted on August 8 at 9:41 a.m.
Dear InTheKnow, I have reconsidered your offer to have our families get together for a wine tasting.
Since I do not drink at all, I volunteer to be the designated driver. My wife does however insist upon knowing with whom we will be sharing that occasion.
Also, it is now the appointed time of which you designated to respond to my posts directed to you yesterday afternoon.
Please respond as promised.
Posted on August 8 at 7:23 a.m.
I sure WISH Beutel would file. That would open her up like a cadaver at an autopsy. Plaintiffs in civil cases do not have a right to remain silent.
As for the Indy, they still have yet to address the fact that they crossed the line both regarding my client, and regarding me. I'm still waiting for them to get back to me on how they want to handle our issue over the publication of the Nye letter.
Peter is writing his 4th Harper Collins book, and I don't discuss anything about other legal matters..Kasigate is about to get a lot bigger, and as I have said before, the law enforcement groupies around these boards are going to be eating lots of humble pie. Unfortunately, Santa Barbara is going to have it's very own Rampart scandal.
Aside from KB and other "original actors" personal responsibility, the one person most responsible for allowing this to get to where it is now is little Sandy Horrowitz. He is certainly free to explain to KB and the rest of the world why he pushed THIS case differently than other recent cases in his office with strikingly similar facts. All I will say is that he let his ego make decisions instead of letting reason dictate his actions.
Now he has his "Daddy" Dozier sitting at counsel table ready to save him each time he drops the ball. Do you think Ms. Dudley has her top dog sitting in because she has faith in young Sandy's advocacy skills?
Posted on August 8 at 4:11 a.m.
As I said in the comments on shredding: all ITK has to do is come to my office today, and I will provide ITK with the stats, and authorize ITK to publish them.
Of course that requires ITK to step out from behind the Internet curtain of anonymity.