Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 21 at 10:05 p.m.
I love how the comment mocking Validated's 3:02am posting was itself posted at 4:19am. Of course, that is all PDT and it is entirely possible that one of the participants was in a different time zone....
On Mistrial Declared in Tony Denunzio DUI Case
Posted on March 18 at 12:50 p.m.
Everything about this case fails the smell test of common sense. While I don't know any of the people involved in the case, I do know people who witnessed the arrest of Mr. Denunzio in the parking lot and I have seen the dashcam video posted on Youtube. Here is what my gut tells me, and I am guessing it is same thing a lot of people believe. First, Mr. Denunzio is guilty of making a very stupid decision. Driving with alcohol in your system (with the exact level being the subject of disagreement) after two prior alcohol-related driving convictions? Seriously, when will he learn? Hopefully before he hurts someone. Secondly, Officer Tudor stakes out the Boathouse, waiting for Mr. Denunzio to leave. That seems to be the only logical explanation for him to be running back to the patrol car and chasing after one vehicle in particular. Looks very much like a vendetta by a power-tripping cop. Then both gentlemen make more stupid decisions in the Gelson's parking lot. Finally, Mr. Genis and his grandstanding style get involved. Sadly, there are only two outcomes possible in this. Either the defense wins or the prosecution wins. My money is on the defense because Mr. Genis has the easy job -- he just has to cast one shadow of reasonable doubt on this case and it is done. As the law states, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. That is the hard part. And therefore, when he does, Mr. Genis will crow about how good he is. While Mr. Genis has a right to say whatever he wants and however he wants, I happen to find his style disgusting. After all, as he stated last year while trying to boast about his results, "The best oncologist in the world loses 98% of his/her patients. My stats are much more impressive than that." To compare what you do, Mr. Genis, to battling cancer is an embarrassment to your profession. You get to attack every possible angle of a case to try to cast doubt or get a charge dismissed. Oncologists don't. And another quotation from Mr. Genis. "My comments here are limited, and there is no need for my further participation." That didn't last too long now, did it?
Posted on October 13 at 12:13 p.m.
Unfortunately, I put little faith in either side. PL's words and actions show an arrogant, self-absorbed individual, and the SBNP is a biased, sensationalist rag. Yet, as much as I hold no one in that grouping in high regard for how the articles are put out there and the infantile language used, I believe that PL has shown that there is a series of events pertaining to one officer -- KB -- that need further investigation and explanation. The problem is that PL discredited himself badly in the first set of articles as he seemed like a vindictive, numbers-manipulating individual, and so few people take him seriously. (Who tries to convince the general public that a .09 BAC is one-hundredth of a percent above the legal limit? So blowing a .16 isn't that bad either as you're only 8 one-hundredths over the limit, not twice it. A more logical argument is that .09 is within a margin of error that can be manipulated.)The SBPD and SBPOA have done nothing to promote the public's trust in them regarding this event. Internal investigations into incidents about which the public is fully aware are being kept secret and/or swept under the rug. While it is hoped that police corruption and cover up is not rampant in this country, it does occur and so it is not unusual for citizens to want to know more. The POA's press release is as bad as the SBNP. It states that PL is a criminal defendant, a somewhat misleading statement since the charges were dropped and PL is no longer a defendant. So the POA is also now stooping to sensationalist name calling.As a concerned citizen, I call on Chief Sanchez, the SBPD, and the SBSO to fully address where the bindle of black tar heroin came from. Sheriff Brown has officially cleared the SBSO of any wrongdoing, yet the event took place in a Sheriff’s facility. Don't you want to know where it came from, Sheriff Brown? If a bindle suddenly appeared on the floor of a holding cell and everyone denied bringing it in, would you just accept that as fact and move on? There is videotaped evidence that it was there, inside the facility, so you might want to figure out who is lying. Jane Doe? One of your officers? The SBPD officer? And, Chief Sanchez, please conduct a thorough review and communicate the results to the people of Santa Barbara. You have clear, official video evidence that runs contrary to a sworn statement from one of your officers. This officer's word is trusted as fact in courts of law, yet her signed report has been shown to not be factual. And, to the POA, investigate these allegations. Stop running a counter-smear campaign. Hitching your cart to this horse may cause you to lose a lot of public (and financial) support if you come out on the wrong end of this, and tarnish the image of some very good officers.
On In Support of Officer Kasi Beutel
Posted on July 5 at 4:40 p.m.
My 2 cents. They're not worth any more than the 2 cents of everyone else. I'm not on one side or another here, but it seems like both sides are in the wrong here.
Is there impropriety going on within SBPD as well as the DA's office? While my answer of "yes" is purely speculative because I have no factual evidence on my own, I think it seems plausible. Information presented by Mr. Genis seems to support that.
However, Mr. Genis trying his case in the press or through his own postings is getting old, as is the number of mysterious individuals who emerge to voice support for him. Especially perplexing is "ilovewhitegirls". Besides the points that Zappa makes about the moniker, how did the early grammar (or lack thereof) change into the most recent post? Can you explain the change?
I find the sensationalism of Mr. Genis' work to be absurd. Unfortunately, this extends to the press and individuals who have taken his side. I will provide two examples. First is Mr. Genis' own post from 7:39am on July 5, 2012. It is a copy of the text of the SB New-Press' article, written by the current editor Scott Steepleton. The opening line of "...facing thousands of dollars in monetary sanctions..." causes quite the sensational stir. Why doesn't Mr. Steepleton just say "three thousand dollars"? That would be more straight-forward as well as maintaining the factual base of the current opening statement. Ultimately, numbers and statistics become what the authors want them to be, and this is seen in the second example. In a piece that accompanied Part I of the series written by Peter Lance for the News-Press in 2011, Mr. Lance states that his recorded BAC of 0.09 is one-hundredth of one percent over the legal limit. Using those exact same numbers, I will argue that a 0.09 is actually 12.5% over the legal limit. Both Mr. Lance's example and my example are factually correct; the difference comes in what reaction the writer is trying to elicit. Unfortunately for Mr. Lance, in his actual article he says that "...half of [Kasi Beutel's] arrests were for .15 blood alcohol content, which is almost twice the legal limit of .08 percent"; he uses the numbers in two different ways on the same page. While I understand his intent to show the the breathalyzer device may have been tampered with, his decision to use numbers in a way to suit his case undermines his presentation of them.
So it is the dramatization and sensationalism which gets to many of us. I believe in the right of every individual to have a fair trial, and for each person to have vigorous and just representation. However, Mr. Genis, stop making some far-reaching (and sometimes inaccurate) statements. It hurts your credibility. And while I applaud Mr. Genis' decision to work pro bono on several cases, I must cynically note that the only ones mentioned are the ones that appear in the press. It's easy to work pro bono when one is getting the publicity.
I've used up my 2 cents.
On Judge Finds Lawyer Must Pay for Courtroom Violations
Posted on July 2 at 10:28 a.m.
I continued to be amused by the discourse until Mr. Genis choose to compare his statistics to that of an oncologist. At this point I found that he had a very poor choice of words.
To be clear, an oncologist works with people who, for the majority, did not make a conscious decision to get cancer. And cancer follows the 'laws' of biology and nature, the majority of which we don't know. So an oncologist is up against an elusive opponent who takes on a different appearance and form in each patient and which often responds differently to the different treatments. What might be considered a 'victory' for an oncologist -- a tumor removed, a mass shrunk -- is often overshadowed by a reappearance days/weeks/months later of the cancer.
You, Mr. Genis, work with people who make a conscious decision to drink and drive. While I know that there are some over-zealous law enforcement officers, there are also plenty of people who drink and subsequently drive while over the limit. Your job is to poke holes in the pieces of evidence and chains of events leading to someone being stopped and subsequently arrested. I understand that. What you are up against is pride and human nature, and what makes this country great is that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. From a defense standpoint, you have many avenues to use (e.g. in the case of the NP story from last year where the author first went after the validity of the device used to field test drivers, only to later have the case thrown out on grounds of an illegal stop) and you only have to poke one hole in the case for you to get a 'win.' If only the oncologist had such a luxury...
So, I feel that for you to compare your success rate with that of an oncologist is in very poor taste. And it does leave me with a question -- will you take all DUI cases that come to you?
Posted on June 30 at 2:45 a.m.
Ahhh, the age of the internet. One side has friends, allies, and aliases making supportive posts as does the other. And then there are posts from parties who are not involved yet support one side or another. How to discern which is which? Who was right? Do we have the whole truth? Do hidden agendas exist? Therein lies the fun. Add in some misspellings (and I am not referring to Tori) and it becomes quite an entertaining read.So I must respectfully ask, Mr. Genis, what kind of work does a "Navel officer" do for 20 years? Oranges? Count innies versus outies?