Comments by pazzingtime

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

Posted on July 24 at 6:39 p.m.

Mr Welsh you missed the boat here with this part of your article. "In one, popular Mesa rat “Bobby I” was stabbed to death at Hendry’s Beach, but only after beating the crap out of a gang punk who called him a “Spenser,” an epithet denoting extreme geeky whiteness. "

First off I am almost 52 years old and I didn't have a clue what a Spenser was. Really Mr. Welsh this is what you want to put out in your article, SHAME on you. Am I mistaken or is "gang punk" also an epithet denoting racism? If I am following your thinking here I can now confront you PHYSICALLY and you will be ok with it because your use of "gang punk" insulted me. NONE OF IT IS OK. You used the words "gang punk" to describe someone and I am insulted by that. The truth is the indecent was over leaving cigarette butts on the ground. And the man that got his butt kicked got up and shook the hand of the man that bettered him. Sadly though there was a coward present and he is allegedly the person who caused the death of what I have been told was a great guy.

To add insult to the beat down the person took that day, he was falsely arrested for the crime and dragged the the media just like you did in this article. Everyone knew he was not the responsible party how was the arrest possible.

I will give you credit for taking on the gang injunction but don't stop now with just that tease. Include the recent comments by Judge Eskin during the Vargas sentencing." At Benjamin Vargas’s sentencing hearing, the judge again called out the authorities, taking the time to note his disappointment with the probation officer’s report ​— ​usually done in preparation for sentencing to help inform the judge’s decision ​— ​calling it “so biased against the defendant that the Court could not rely on the information, the analysis or the recommendation presented.” Eskin said the bias of the report, wherein the officer recommended the upper term of 11 years, was palpable."

Share how he was brave enough to call out the District Attorneys office for not proving the charge of Murder one."At the end of the trial, the judge had concluded the jury would not be able to consider first-degree murder in its deliberations, finding that no rational trier of fact could find Vargas guilty of first-degree murder, which requires premeditation and deliberation." He then called them out again for the Grand Jury indictment of two females."It was another hiccup for Almgren in what proved to be a complicated and emotional case. In October, a Grand Jury indicted Maria Vargas and Karen Medina as accessories to the homicide, as authorities accused Medina of assaulting Velasquez during the attack, and Vargas was accused of driving the car away from the crime scene. They spent eight days in jail before posting bail.

On Dazed Dogs of Summer

Posted on July 2 at 4:02 p.m.

In closing is it time for the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office to create a PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION for elected officials? I feel the citizens of Santa Barbara County have the right to expect that their elected and appointed officials will carry out their duties in a lawful, ethical and professional manner. They also have the right to expect that administrators, supervisors and the immediate subordinates of elected and appointed officials, who play an integral role in achieving the mission of the office holder, will discharge their duties and obligations in the same lawful, ethical and professional manner.

A District Attorneys Public Integrity Division would ensure that public and appointed officials and their subordinates fulfill their legally mandated duties. To this end, the District attorney’s Office should use all resources at its disposal to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct at all levels of public service. Of course a Public Integrity Division’s ultimate goal is to increase the public’s level of confidence in its elected and appointed officials. Of course this is truly an oxymoron because the first hurdle we would have to over come when forming a Public .Integrity .Division would be creating public trust in the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office.!

Judge Fines Lawyer for Courtroom Violations
DUI Attorney Darryl Genis Required to Report Sanctions to State Bar
Thursday, June 28, 2012 by CHRIS MEAGHER (CONTACT)
Please click on the link to see the full Independent story @

“At the end of the Independent story there is currently 71 comments from the public, I have included just a few.”

On Judge Finds Lawyer Must Pay for Courtroom Violations

Posted on July 2 at 4:01 p.m.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill's Latest Antics are being Questioned by the Public, well It's About Time!
Finally the people of Santa Barbara appear to have caught up to me in regards to the serious concerns I have with Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill. Just this past week Judge Hill fined lawyer Darryl Genis for questioning a witness whether she, in writing or orally, gave sworn testimony that was not both true and correct. Genis later asked a different question of another witness which the judge deemed was also an attempt to bring up prior acts.” I repeated it, I repeated it, I repeated it,” Hill said of his admonition not to bring up any prior acts of moral turpitude. “To me, this is indefensible.”

Since I am not as smart as Judge Hill I had to look up the meaning of Moral Turpitude;
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude has significance in several areas of law. First moral turpitude is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may be used for purposes of witness impeachment. THAT IS EXCEPT IN JUDGE BRIAN HILL’S SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURTROOM.

Now like I said I am not as bright as our Superior Court Judge Brian Hill and excuse me for saying this. But it appears that not only is the questioning of ones moral turpitude relevant in a court room; it is also standard practice according to the definition I was able to find on the Internet. Now the first quote I referenced from Judge Hill and the second one that comes up next were both pulled from the Santa Barbara Independent story written by Chris Meagher, I have included a link for your convenience at the end of this posting.

“Hill, for his part, said he didn’t want his courtroom turned into a circus. “I issue orders that I see as appropriate in terms of how I want this courtroom conducted”
As for the circus reference Judge Hill made that horse left the barn along time ago Judge. You have to remember this is the same Judge who allowed the Santa Barbara District attorneys office to file an ex parte motion in the Peter lance D.U.I. case who by the way was also represented by Darryl Genis. If not for the opposing motion filed by a California D.U.I. lawyers group Judge Hill never would have acknowledges it’s unconstitutionality. The argument opposing the ex parte motion was;” There is no authority for the requested protective order, no authority that any protective order can be issued ex parte, and it accordingly should not be granted, lest a host of constitutional problems would be loosed upon the land.” I have at least another hundred examples I could write about, but I think this and all my other posting get the point across.

On Judge Finds Lawyer Must Pay for Courtroom Violations

Posted on June 20 at 9:17 p.m.

Why is it that the media never ask any questions at these press conference's? I mention this because in the first story Mr. Meagher wrote "As officers tried to take Covarrubias into custody, police said, he struggled with them, drew his weapon, and fired. The Associated Press reported that Covarrubias fired his weapon four times"

So now in the District Attorneys report it claims only one round was shot.

: Arrest of Officer Goes Terribly Wrong
Albert Covarrubias, Suspected of Sex Crimes, Is Shot and Killed by Fellow Cop

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

On DA Clears Officer in Fatal Cop-on-Cop Shooting

Posted on June 20 at 9:07 p.m.

As I read D.A. Dudley's report certain things jumped out at me, than as I went through all the Medias stories my concerns were validated.

1- The time of the shooting was different between the media and the D.A.'s why. The D.A. made a point of stating very clearly the shooting happen after 1:27 am and not 1:10 as reported most times by the media
2- From the very beginning the media reported that only one shot was fired by Officer Kline hitting Officer Covarrubias in the chest and killing him. Once again I refer to page 14 that states officer Kline fired 3 shots .at officer Covarrubias all hits.
3- What really bothers me is that time and time again the Santa Maria police also represented that only one shot to the chest was fired. PEOPLE IF YOU FOLLOW UP ON NOTHING ELSE LET IT BE THIS FACT. OFFICER KLINE FIRED 3 TIMES AT OFFICER COVARUBIAS. HITTING HIM TWICE IN THE BACK OF THE NECK AND ONCE IN THE BACK. THE SHOT TO THE BACK WAS BLOCKED BY HIS VEST. IN OTHER WORDS OFFICER COVARUBIAS WAS LAYING FACE DOWN AS HE WAS SHOT.! WHAT THE HELL REALLY HAPPEN THAT NIGHT. Are we to believe that in the heat of battle with an officer on top of Officer Covarrubias. Officer Kline was able to think on his feet, realized that officer Covarrubias was wearing a vest and placed two of his three kill shots to the back of the neck? Is it just me or does this sound a little bit like a movie mafia hit?
4- I keep wondering how officer Kline did not shot the officer who was on top of officer Covarrubias as reported in the D.A.'s report on page 13
5- If you review the officer's actions immediately after the shooting you will find that no one attempted to save Officer Covarrubias, there were over 9 officers present at that time.

I could easily give you 20 more contradictions but do I really have to, the man was shot face down 3 times. But wait there is more did you know that former officers disclosed some details to the Associated Press only on condition of anonymity? The officers, who hade more than six decades of experience between them, independently described what, happened that night. Police at the scene told the retired officers that Covarrubias fired four times, but not at anything or anyone. Here is the link where I found that statement.

So right off the bat the statement made by former officers contradicts page 14 of D.A. Dudley's report where she states that Officer Covarrubias's Glcok 15(no such weapon exist)had only fired one round. Then if you look at page 13 on her report officer Guerra also heard 4 shots before the 3 tangled officers fell to the ground, big problems here.Like I just said I could break down why District Attorney Dudley's report and justification on the shooting should be thrown out. But the only thing that really matters is what you think.

Larry Mendoza

On DA Clears Officer in Fatal Cop-on-Cop Shooting

Posted on June 20 at 9:05 p.m.

Up until last night I have not spent one minute reviewing what happen with the shooting death of Officer Covarrubias in Santa Maria by a fellow officer. But I decided to read the latest about the case and District Attorneys Joyce Dudley's finding that the shooting was justified. I read the story and I had a couple of concerns but I was willing to let it go. Now 6 years ago I was one of the few people willing to leave a comment about my concerns, not anymore. In just the last three weeks I have seen where as many as 90 comments appear after a story challenging the D.A.'s office or a Judges Verdict.

So I finished the article I was reading and then went on to review the public comments. I swear this is the truth the second comment I read questioned madam D.A Dudley's facts. You see in her report under "Evidence at the Scene" page 14 Dudley reports that Officer Covarrubias's duty weapon was a Glock model 15 9mm hand gun. Well the comment I read stated that no such weapon exists and that he even went to the Glock web page and verified this fact. Well you know me always dotting my I's and crossing my T's when it comes to verifying facts. So. I to go to the Glock web page and found his statement was true ( How could D.A. Dudley make such a huge mistake about officer Covarrubias's weapon? Of course now I have to read the 18 page report that the District Attorney based her decision on. Then decide for myself if it warrants more time by me, sadly it does.

So what I did after I read Dudley's report was to find a media source that reported on the shooting from the very beginning. I reviewed one story after another keeping track of the facts, looking for changes or contradictions. Once again I am here to report I cannot accept the facts as presented by District Attorney Dudley

So after all that I have one question for Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce Dudley. Is that really the version you want to go with in your Report on the Officer Involved Shooting? In the past I could easily produce four or five postings a week to share and now I try and find almost any excuse not to report my observations, I feel like I am beating on a dead horse. I mean how many different ways can I try and expose corruption and abuse of powers by our elected County Officials, Judges, and District Attorney, Law Enforcement not to mention the SBCERS pension.

Now I am really pushing myself to get my concerns out right away this morning for one reason only. In hopes that the public will start asking their own questions to District Attorney Dudley and anyone else they see fit. Please keep in mind that everything I am presenting here was found in one night with minimal effort by me.

So I am just going to share my observations and leave it up to you how important they are.

On DA Clears Officer in Fatal Cop-on-Cop Shooting

Posted on May 24 at 8:06 a.m.

Wow the nerve of our Santa Barbara County Supervisors questioning accounting practices of the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services department. It was almost two years
ago that Supervisor Gray said this about her colleagues;
” Gray then addressed her Ponzi scheme comment, saying the board was moving money “here and there,” even making reference to Bernie Madoff. “ All I can say is be careful when throwing bricks at glass houses.
Light at End of Budget Tunnel?
Cuts, Concessions, and Even Energy Efficiency May Bring Balance

Thursday, June 17, 2010
Fourth District Supervisor Joni Gray blasted the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors majority Friday as the quintet conducted their final deliberations on what to cut for the 2010-2011 fiscal year’s $833-million budget they were finalizing to go into effect July 1.

“I’d like all of you to leave this hearing with three words,” Gray said, actually using four words to initially describe her cryptic message. “Bus, bridge, and Ponzi scheme.”

She continued, “I feel like I’m speeding down a highway in a bus and there’s a sign that says, in half-a-mile the bridge is out,’ and yet nothing is being done to stop this bus.” While people everywhere are cutting back, she said, the board was “not taking their foot off the gas.” Gray then addressed her Ponzi scheme comment, saying the board was moving money “here and there,” even making reference to Bernie Madoff. “You’re all very bright and well-meaning, but I cannot support this bus going off the bridge,” she said.

That didn’t sit well with 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal, who said Gray’s language was “unfortunate.” He noted the $16 million in employee concessions the board had landed and said the board had taken a multifaceted approach — cutting, getting concessions, and shoring up programs — in balancing the budget after beginning with a $41-million deficit.( this is not the full article)

On Scorched on the Hot Seat

Posted on May 24 at 12:26 a.m.

To bad Santa Barbara police officer Aaron Tudor was not the arresting officer, than maybe she would have gotten a beat down or broken arm.

Of course I am not being serious, in reality these are all sad events that we the public are being force feed. 47 comments from the public should give the District Attorney and Superior Court Bench some type heads up that the public is concerned about how charges are handled in Santa Barbara County. Maybe it was a "Ruse' D.U.I. , like the 'Ruse' affidavits used in Santa Maria. I called the Judicial Council and asked for the 'Ruse'affidavit form number and was told that there is no such form. Except in two superior court cases in Santa Maria. I mean are you kidding me a "Ruse' ( where the intent is to deceive the receiver of the affidavit) and may include the follow up action of pulling the Ruse document so as no one else can find the crime against the Constitutional rights of the 'Ruse' victim.( see case 1 @
and case 2 Judge: Police use of fake paperwork was lawful
@ ) Maybe there is a "Ruse" conviction, or "Ruse' probation? In these cases the 'RUSE' would be against us the public leaving us to think that Justice was handed down.
Makes me sick that no one has called our County D.A. Joyce Dudley and law enforcement on them making up their own Constitution.

On Priscilla Susman Sentenced to One Year in Jail

Posted on January 13 at 2:19 a.m.

There is so much more that needs to be made public!

On DA Gets Lyons Conviction on Third Try

Posted on January 13 at 2:18 a.m.

Here is the very interesting web site and reports I recently discovered concerning the Corey Lyons case.

Corey Lyons Case reports and discrepancy's found @
The Murders of Barbara Sharton and Daniel Lyons

On May 2, 2009 at approximately 1:30 in the morning, Barbara Scharton and Daniel Lyons, were murdered by multiple gunshots in their home on Aurora Street, Santa Barbara, California. Daniel Lyons' brother, Corey, was arrested the morning following the homicides and charge with their murders. The Probable Cause Narrative PROBABLE_CAUSE.pdf ( ) composed by one of the Santa Barbara detectives describes the case against Corey Lyons.

I was retained to examine the evidence in this case, specifically the gunshot residue evidence and later asked to do a scene reconstruction. Upon receiving the reports and images of the two homicides, it became apparent this double homicide was the most complex of my career.

The prosecution criminalists were extraordinary inept in not only the processing of the scene but also interpretation. The prosecution's key premise was that the two homicides were performed by one person, Corey Lyons. The evidence shows, however, there were two assailants that night, who were in no hurry to leave the scene after the murders. There is evidence of theft of at least one item and post-mortem manipulation of Daniel Lyon's body.

There were three trials of Corey Lyons, the first ended in mistrial during the that trial, the second ended with a hung jury (seven jurors in favor of acquittal) and the final trial convicted after three hours deliberation. The defense attorney, Robert Sanger, presented a peculiar strategy in defense of Corey Lyons by only attacking the credibility of the prosecution criminalists, but not apparently presenting any expert opinion. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Sanger during the third trial, I offered to testify in the defense case essentially pro bono. In my opinion, Mr. Sanger elected to repeat the flawed strategy of the second trial with disastrous results for Corey Lyons.


1. Reconstruction of the homicide of Barbara Scharton:

2. Reconstruction of the homicide of Daniel Lyons (three parts):

3. Gunshot residue analyses of Corey Lyons hands and possessions:
Lyons GS Rreport.pdf @

On DA Gets Lyons Conviction on Third Try

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: