• Printer friendly
• E-mail to a friend
• 25 comment(s)
• Recommend

  ( 0 )

• 

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Cops and Dudley : 1/29/2010

Joyce Dudley has been plag ued by professional misconduct findings throughout her career. Apparently the police think that such conduct is fine as long as it is done in the prosecution of their cases. I doubt they would think it appropriate from the other side. This endorsement is simply politics as usual. We need to find a better choice to run this critical part of our justice system.

RHS

not fcused at all... : 1/29/2010

What a mess, a boss with cancer, a rat race for the position, nothing but inefficiency at every level. This can only get worse with the police union's endorsement of another puppet. She'll be focused on their agenda come November. More political power.

Boycott Boy

Cops and Dudley : 1/29/2010

Great call by the cops!
Josh and his boy Jim O’Shaughnessy can rant here all they want about Dudley’s so called “professional misconduct” but everyone knows there’s nothing to it. The cops have worked with her for years and know that when you try cases and have the conviction rate Dudley does there’s bound to be a murderer or rapist or two who will say anything to stay out of jail.
Soldier on Joyce you have our support! Don’t let the lies distract you from becoming our next DA. Come June you’ll be able to stand tall as our new DA and Josh can find a new rock to crawl under.

Truth & Justice...Lynn should learn about both

Cops and Dudley 2 : 1/29/2010

The denier of Dudley's misconduct can puff and blow all he orshe wants but here are some of the facts as reported in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, a publication with real reporters on the job:
Court documents reflect that Dudley’s track record includes several instances of reported misconduct. For example, during a 1995 case, called People V. Amado Inda, which involved the case of a man accused of repeated sexual abuse of a minor, Dudley’s conviction was reversed for six instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Those circumstances led to a motion for a new trial.
“Although the (judge) has presided over more than one hundred criminal justice trials, this will be the first such motion I have ever granted,” Barbara County Superior Court Judge Patrick McMahon wrote.
In his conclusion, McMahon said: “As I observed 100 pages ago, this is not a happy decision. It involves a prosecutor who I once admired. It was not pleasant to either recall, or recount in print, how she fell so quickly from grace as she endeavored to overzealously obtain a conviction at any cost, and without regard to rules of law, evidence, or ethical probity.
“I felt totally betrayed,” the judge went on to say. According to a New York Times article from October 2006, Dudley was disqualified from a case after it was discovered that she wrote a novel whose facts and characters closely mirrored those in an actual rape case. The crime novel titled “Intoxicating Agent,” had as its heroine “Jordon Danner, the same initials and the same job as Dudley …”
“Acting on a motion from the real defendant in a real rape-by-intoxication case, an appeals court in Ventura ruled on Thursday that Ms. Dudley’s novel had crossed an ethical line,” the article reads. See the whole story at www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/8/4/5834/

RHS

Dudley vs Lynn : 1/30/2010

Dudley will be a better DA. Josh is too inexperienced. We need someone with lots of experience and that would be Joyce. You go girl!

Genius

Call for SBPD to Withdraw Endorsement : 1/30/2010

I think Colby Frazier, the reporter for the story above entitled "Police Union Backs Dudley for DA" should write a new story. The story should investigate how much time Sgt. Mike McGrew (and others in his union) spent researching Joyce Dudley's record before his union endorsed Joyce Dudley. I would like to give Sgt. McGrew (whom I’m sure is a fine officer) the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was not aware of People V. Carlos, People V. Inda, People V. Tovar. And, something very curious that came up in People V. Acosta where Joyce Dudley tries to get the mention of all these cases by a defense attorney (asking the judge to warn Joyce Dudley to not do what she's done in the past so his client may obtain a fair trial) struck and/or sealed. If Sgt. McGrew was indeed unaware of these cases I would invite him to spend some time reviewing them at www.joycedudleymisconduct.com where the public record documents pertaining to all of the above mentioned cases are conveniently stored.
I would like Colby Frazier to ask Sgt. McGrew, after he's reviewed the facts in those cases, as ruled upon by judges and a matter of public record, to see if he and his union would like to withdraw their endorsement of Joyce Dudley. I'm sure, that Sgt. McGrew would agree that when someone is charged with felony sexual abuse of their own daughter (under the age of 14) that it is very important for that person to receive a fair trial in order for lasting justice to be obtained.
I would be very surprised to learn that Sgt. McGrew and/or ANY of the other fine SBPD officers knew that, due directly to Joyce Dudley's excessive prosecutorial misconduct (as ruled by a superior court judge), either an innocent man was unjustly accused of the unspeakable or an innocent young child received no justice for truly heinous acts purported upon her over a long period of time. We will never know as, after the conviction was overturned by the judge, the alleged victim refused to go through another trial and did not press charges.
I believe one forfeits their moral authority to lead the DA’s office when this (Inda) is only one of several cases with serious misconduct problems listed at www.joycedudleymisconduct.com there is no expiration date on good ethics. I hope the SBPD’s union takes a good hard look at this website and does the right thing and reconsiders their endorsement. If they think the site is a fake, they should take the case names and file numbers to the court records office and obtain the records for themselves. They might want to have an attorney look at the documents and advise them. After all, isn’t the respect for the rule of law an absolute foundation of our free society?
This is not a personal attack Joyce Dudley, it is a review of her professional record. People reading this may think it is a personal attack but if you ever found yourself in either Mr. Inda’s shoes or his daughter’s I think you would want a fair trial. I urge Sgt. McGrew and his union to review the public record and reconsider their endorsement.

Concerned Citizen

Shame on Concerned Citizen and Josh Lynn : 1/30/2010

By posting this 15 yr old court ruling and NOT REDACTING THE VICTIMS NAME you have demonstrated without a shred of doubt your complete disregard of the rights of victims and the low to which you will stoop in attempting to win a race.

Stunned

way out of line : 1/30/2010

the previous poster is WAY OUT OF LINE AND A SCOUNDREL COWARD!!. What kind of piece of crap are you?

Ronald T

skeletons in closet : 1/30/2010

My comment was intended for "skeleton"

Ronald T

Response to Shame on Concerned Citizen : 1/30/2010

Stunned, Thank you for proving my point. Is the "victim" in the Inda case really a victim??? Can you be sure? Due to the way the case ended there literally was no victim and no perpetrator for that matter. The only things we can be sure about are that many unanswered questions remain, a significant amount of tax payer resources were consumed and most importantly some people's lives were affected in a way I wouldn't wish on anyone. The alleged perpetrator walked out of the courthouse a free man. We'll never know. It sounds like you are assuming Amado Inda was guilty - shame on you for being so presumptuous as the decision was reversed by the judge. What about his rights? What if he was innocent and here you are representing him as guilty. This is the slippery slope created when prosecutors don't play by the rules established for the very basic reason that justice cannot ever be served when prosecutors have a history of relying on excessive and serious prosecutorial misconduct to obtain convictions. Based on public record, Joyce Dudley has a clear long term pattern of this.
Imagine if your father was the person on trial for the terrible crime alleged in the Inda case? What if you believed him to be innocent and he was convicted due to no less than six instances of misconduct during the trial by the prosecutor. Can you even imagine your family in such twilight zone scenario? Perhaps in another country where the rule of law is not sacred as it is in the United States. Thank goodness Judge McMahon wouldn't put up with it. Did you read his quote? Would you please read the material before you state things as fact that are not fact? There can not be a victim (in the sense to which you refer) in a case with a reversed decision and no further adjudication.
Just how do you explain this quote from the reversal order about Joyce Dudley from the judge for whom Santa Barbara's law library is named regarding Joyce's misconduct in the Inda case:
"As I observed 100 pages ago, this is not a happy decision. It involves a prosecutor who I once admired. It was not pleasant to either recall, or recount in print, how she fell so quickly from grace as she endeavored to overzealously obtain a conviction at any cost, and without regard to rules of law, evidence, or ethical probity. When, following, argument, I first became aware of the Carlos case I felt totally betrayed."
To me, the most disconcerting aspect of the entire Inda case was that Joyce Dudley had already had a domestic battery conviction reversed (see People v. Carlos) and didn't learn a darn thing from that experience. Then she did it again in the Tovar case.
Also, how in the world does the time of 15 years matter at all? Do you really think that the ethics of middle aged adult change? Does doing the wrong thing have a statue of limitations when it comes to bringing the full power of the state to bear on a man who doesn't even speak English? Obviously you didn't read any of the public record information at www.joycedudleymisconduct.com as there are issues listed from different cases from 1993, 1995, 2001, 2006 and 2009. I am not trying to be rude in saying this, but please do something Americans used to do and educate yourself on the facts before you try and influence others with noise that is not information. Please read the public records that anyone can obtain and then respond as I will gladly listen to you should you take the time and effort to review the records.
As for Skeleton in the closet's remark about Joyce Dudley's alleged infidelity; I believe that unless they can prove it, it is absolutely not right to even mention it.

Concerned Citizen

apparent pseudonyms : 1/31/2010

I suspect that one person is writing under the pseudonyms of "concerned citizen" and "RHS". The writing styles and mechanics are absolutely identical and the message is redundant. Also, "these writers" evidently have information that would only be readily available and easily reportable to people who have inside access as they apparently do. I am not saying that it is privileged information, just not readily available. I suspect that this person is listed below.
Jim Nalls
Criminal Investigator Supervisor, Retired
Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office
Mr Nall writes under his own name under the article labled "Supervisors to decide whether to fill Stanley's post".
Can't prove this but read the posts for yourselves. Too similar to be coincidence? I look forward to hearing other's thoughts on this suspicion.

SV

Pseudonym : 1/31/2010

Maybe not "RHS" so much, but definitely "Concerned Citizen"

SV

Dudley, really? : 1/31/2010

I can't even imagine having Joyce Dudley run the office of District Attorney - this is an office that is based 100% on integrity and rule of law. Have you all seen this: www.joycedudleymisconduct.com?

Michael Reynolds

Your Record : 1/31/2010

Until I read the article last week in the Valley Journal I had no idea Joyce had such a sordid past. To think I was even on the fence about who to vote for..... Not any more.... You can't hide from your record Joyce. It is only a matter of time now before your supporters start dropping you for the fraud that you are. Shame on you for running and wasting taxpayers time.

Wayne Moore (retired PD)

Response to apparent pseudonyms : 1/31/2010

SV,
Now you know the importance of these public record documents that the average voter never takes the time to look at. Yes, they are hard to find if one doesn't know the names of the cases or the file numbers. I imagine Joyce Dudley was counting on that when she decided to run for DA. However, a defense attorney by the name of Benjamin Bycel did an enormous amount of research and, indirectly, came up with all most all of the information listed at www.joycedudleymisconduct.com. Mr. Bycel did the public a huge service in finding what would have been almost impossible for the average voter to find and making that information part of the public record by introducing his findings of Joyce Dudley's past record to the court in an effort to obtain a fair trial for his client. He found the Carlos, Inda and Tovar cases two of which (Carlos and Inda) had convictions, Joyce Dudley obtained via multiple counts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, thrown out.
So, once again, please read the documents and see where Joyce Dudley pleads with the judge to have the mention of her horrendous past struck or sealed. In fact, she gets Mr. Bycel to actually ask the Judge to strike/seal what he made a motion on. I sure would like to know why a defense attorney wanted to "take back" part of a motion he made to help his client. The defense attorney apparently submitted the documents to the court the day before and then had a change of heart overnight regarding the portion referring to Joyce Dudley.
Pleas take the time to read it. http://www.joycedudleymisconduct.com/Joyce%20Wants%20It%20Secret%5B1%5D.pdf
Look at page 8, lines 10 - 13 and page 8, lines 19 - 20...Quite a while after the judge has put the issue to rest (or so he thinks) Joyce Dudley is actually arguing that Mr. Bycel's motion to make the judge aware of Joyce Dudley's past shouldn't be part of the public record because people could look at it. I can see why Joyce Dudley wanted to keep that a secret, especially just before she announces her intention to run for DA.
Again, another fine Judge made the right decision and now the people will have the opportunity to review Joyce Dudley's record in an effort to make an informed decision on the race.
Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen : 2/1/2010

Concerned Citizen~ Thank you for taking the time to try to convince me to go to a web site that is strictly dedicated to smear a particular candidate. I am sure I would find unbiased, completely contextualized and fair information. After all, I would expect such from a website called "joycedudleymisconduct.com". Sounds like a completely reliable and utterly integral source of information. No agenda with this site, I am sure....... Do you think everybody is gullible enough to believe whatever they read on the internet? I am not saying that there may be some measure of truth in your accusations, I do not know, but I certainly would never rely on a political site dedicated to the smearing of a particular person. That is terrible, and I hope that people are not as easily influenced and manipulated as you think they are. By the way, I did read the court transcript of the issue your keep referring to in your accusations of misconduct. My first thought was that this is merely a PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING, and not even a trial. I am completely baffled as to what you are talking about in terms of misconduct. Is it simply because Ms Dubley and the Defense Counsel wanted the motion concerning the witness withdrawn or sealed? So what? If I read the transcript correctly (and I read if fast and only once) the motion simply was concerned about how to qualify a particular witness, either as an expert in a particular field or not. Both sides agreed that the witness was not to be called as an expert in that field. Why would this be construed as misconduct as you purport? Maybe I am missing something but I am curious for your answer.

SV

Wrong page? : 2/1/2010

Concerned Citizen~ Am I correct in thinking that you accidentally put down the wrong page number of page 8? Those lines you provided merely deal with jury selection. Perhaps you meant page 9?

SV

Scariest part is that Josh Lynn thinks all this is ok : 2/1/2010

besides being crudely done so it looks like it was done either by a gradeschool kid trying to bully someone, or a mentally ill but passionate person, IT IS JUST SO TACKY and beneath anything that someone who wants to be the highest ranking law enforcement official in the county would do. Especially in that it sacrifices the personal lives of people who were victims-yes, victims- in a way that any first year law student knows should never, ever be done. Let alone in the quest for elected office.

Shame Shame Shame on Josh

Will someone else please enter the race? : 2/1/2010

Wow the door is wide open i would say after Mr. Lynn has basically shown the depths to which he will stoop to "win"....

Whos behind door number 3?

Hired guns? : 2/1/2010

After doing a little more research, it is obvious that "concerned citizen" and his cohorts are merely mercenaries and or zealots for Mr. Lynn. I went to their site out of curiosity and, as mandated by law, they reveal themselves as a campaign site for their boy. This website clearly states that it is paid for bythe Josh Lynn for D.A. campaign. It is absolutely disgusting when a campaign must rely on throwing mud on others in an attempt to try to make their candidate look good. You guys are a joke. It is quite possible that I would have voted for Mr. Lynn but not a chance now. Your indignant fist pounding is laughable. Grow up and stop thinking that your silly arguments are so powerful and revealing. We the people do not need your attempted manipulations. Get off of this site and keep your advertisements away.

SV

name change? : 2/1/2010

Maybe "concerned citizen" should change his name to "fraudulent citizen"

real citizen

Concerned Citizen : 2/1/2010

Dear SV,
Since when did telling the truth, backed by public record, about a candidate's past job performance become a "smear campaign"? Smear campaigns are when you attack someone's personal activities outside of their job. Regarding victims, you (as does Sgt. McGrew of the SBPD) keep going on about victim's rights and Joyce Dudley's above average deference to the victim's feelings to the extend that it brings up an excellent point worthy of much discussion. The point is this, is Joyce Dudley overly biased when she steps in the courtroom? Don't get me wrong, I think its fine for a prosecutor to beleive the accused is guilty. Having a tough as nails prosecutor go after the accused is something I absolutely want in return for my tax dollars. However, having someone with a predestined agenda who is readily willing to consistently overstep the limits of ethical behavior as a prosecutor is something that scares the hell out of me. The voters need to review Joyce Dudley's entire record and make this decision for themselves.
Do you not agree that the accused in the United States are innocent until proven guilty - now matter how awful the charges levied against them? Should a prosecutor be allowed to consistently bend and break the rules just because she has an advanced level of empathy for people who literally are not victims until the accused is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt by a jury of their peers?
Also, you are being disingenuous at best when you claim to have read the entire document I referred you to (although you did point out my typo, yes page nine on the second reference - thank you) as you pick the most innocuous aspect of the document to discuss. People who take the time to read is will clearly understand that the entire first and last part of the document is dealing with Mr. Bycel's very strange request, that the judge ultimately denies, of trying to take back a motion introducing all of the information he gathered on Joyce Dudley's checkered ethical record. Why did he do this?
So, due to Joyce Dudley's professional record, which is a matter of public record we have a defense attorney concerned to the point that he brings up her record before a trial even starts in an effort to ensure his client a fair trial because he was concerned about Joyce Dudley's past actions. Then, due to some strange turn of events the defense attorney asks the judge to allow him to remove items that would be damaging to Joyce Dudley's upcoming campaign and you don't find that disconcerting in the least. You offer only that I am leading a personal smear campaign in transparently feeble defense. You try and discredit me by saying I'm violating the victim's rights in the Inda case when by mentioning her name (which I did not do but referred to "his daughter"), in this case there literally is no victim, she is only the accuser and will be forever as a text book miscarriage of justice occurred due directly and solely to Joyce Dudey's six instances of prosecutorial misconduct as ruled upon by a very well respected judge. If caring about something as serious as this is and taking time to educate my fellow citizens so they may make an informed decision is what you call "mentally ill" I just don't know what this country is coming to.
I'll remind you that I was the person asking "Skeletons" not to cast aspersions of Joyce Dudley's extramarital affair(s) (unless they had proof as it would show character and honesty flaws) and I've stuck to public records in pointing out Joyce Dudley's past ethical issues. How can this be construed as a personal smear campaign? Saying so is the only, politically motivated, response anyone can come up with to try and salvage a campaign that could be rapidly unraveling. Also, I encourage anyone who thinks www.joycedudleymisconduct.com is a fake to pull the public records and compare them to the records on www.joycedudleymisconduct.com. I don't see you saying they are fakes and I don't see you providing information to refute any of it. I welcome anyone to build a similar site against anyone running for DA should they have a similar record. You are only offering deflection based tactics. Prove me wrong about Joyce Dudley and I will vote for her.
Don't forget that Joyce Dudley had to cling to the First Amendment in the Haraguchi case and in doing so it ultimately kept her from more serious trouble. Are you really saying that a concerned citizen who believes in the rule of law and holding government officials to these important rules that are in place to protect us is wrong to point out multiple instances of a candidate for DA running afoul of them?
These are all issues that should be debated between the candidates in front of the voting public. Josh Lynn has offered to hold debates since November. Joyce Dudley refuses to directly answer the call for debates and has her paid campaign consultant answer as her proxy. They say they are waiting to see who else enters the race. Why not hold debates now and add more debates as more people enter the race? Why wait?
If anything, Josh Lynn should be commended for participating in a true democratic process, deploying new technology in providing public record information and sticking only to professional record information in pointing out the very significant differences between the candidates.

Concerned Citizen

Concerned Citizen : 2/1/2010

Concerned Citizen. You really are not a "concerned citizen". You are an obvious campaigner (either volunteer or paid) for your candidate. Now I know where you get the time to write your endless campaign ads, you are on Josh Lynn's campaign staff and/or payroll. Anyway, you have worn me out (I guess you did your job. Victory through attrition! lol) Just a couple things and I am moving on. You definitely have me confused with some other poster because I have never engaged you about "going on about victim's rights and Joyce Dudley's above average deference to the victim's feelings". I will be charitable in assuming that you confused me with some one else since you probably spend much time defending yourself against other critics as well. I assure you that you will find no greater advocate for the rights of the accused than I, and no bigger critic of over zealous, reckless prosecutors.
Also, I did indeed read the entire court document that you provided in your prior post http://www.joycedudleymisconduct.com/Joyce%20Wants%20It%20Secret%5B1%5D.pdf ). Again I ask you to explicitly describe the egregious misconduct that you allude to. Was Ms Dudley censured for this alleged misconduct? What is the significance of this? What are you implying? Do you have proof of misconduct? If not, then I would confidently state that you ARE running a smear campaign. I implore you to please tell me to what misconduct you are alluding in this instance. Does this have something to do with that silly book thing? What were the details of the motion to be withdrawn? Were they removed? If so, didn't the judge decide that it was appropriate? Are you implying that there is some sort of illicit or blatantly illegal collaboration between Ms Dudley and the Defense Attorney? If so, to what end and why would the Defense attorney participate? Are you saying that he would jeopardize his career for the sake of Ms Dudley's political campaign? Ms Dudley's record in the courtroom is public information. Anyone can get it. I would like to know, EXPLICITLY, what your allegations of misconduct are in this instance and your evidence to support them. I offer you the chance to convince me, otherwise I will continue to call your campaign for what it is... Smear (be careful what you say here as we don't want to get Mr. Lynn's campaign in trouble for libel. We all know that you are a proxy for his campaign… Mr Nalls and others)
Finally, you absolutely misconstrue my criticism of your posts as support for another candidate. My criticism is toward the blatant and obvious campaign efforts by Josh Lynn’s campaign staff on this post board. You should not be here with these advertisements. The same goes for the campaign of Ms Dudley. Hiding behind the moniker of “concerned citizen” does not conceal you for what you are and what you are doing. We are not going to be manipulated by people like you. Good day good luck and good bye. No further comments.

SV

Answers : 2/3/2010

Will the Lynn people answer this, if Dudleys performance and misconduct rise to the level Mr. Lynn felt the need to put up a website detailing them what has he done to correct this? Has he either taken steps to monitor her caseload or suspended her from office as acting District Atty? If he hasnt please explain how this is not a failure of leadership on his part, or if thats not the case is it just dirty campaigning on his part.
Please let us know which of the two it is?

waiting for the answer

Character : 2/7/2010

What kind of person would advance her career by burying her boss when she's gravely ill? As a military vereran, I have seen many who wanted to be leaders but did not want to lead. Ms. Dudley's conduct puts her in that category. In combat, they don't last long.

Captain Al