Pedroza Arrested for Sex with Minor

The Capistrano Dispatch wrote:

Two South County Youth Leaders Suspected of Sexual Relationships with Minors

A Capo Beach youth pastor was arrested today on suspicion of sexual involvement with a minor. The suspect, 28-year-old Daniel Pedroza, is a junior high school ministry pastor at Capo Beach Calvary Church in Dana Point. His arrest followed a child abuse report authorities received from social services. The report claimed a female minor-somewhere between 14 and 17-had become sexually involved with her youth pastor, said Orange County Sheriff’s Department Spokesman Jim Amormino. He said the victim met Pedroza when she was in junior high, and that she had known him for a little while before the report was filed.

And a San Clemente man was arrested Wednesday on suspicion that he molested a San Juan Capistrano boy two years ago while he was coaching him in basketball. Cameron Joseph Baca, 27, was arrested at his SC home and posted $100,000 bail Thursday morning. According to Amormino, a young boy recently came forward and told his parents Baca had molested him. Official charges against Baca have not been filed. Amormino requests anyone with information about Baca or potential vicitms call OCSD at 714.628.7170.

Read more of both stories at www.thecapistranodispatch.com.

Oh the IRONY. Or is it just karma?

  22 comments for “Pedroza Arrested for Sex with Minor

  1. jose s.
    December 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    hey prevatt, i know why you did this post but doesnt it lower you to the standards of art? arent you supposed to be better than that?

  2. Paul Lucas
    December 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    LOL. I guess youre still holding a grudge eh chris? Oh the drama.

  3. Burgess Meredith
    December 19, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Not very funny Prevatt.

    I realize that you think this is cute, but in reality it makes you look like a real jackass.

  4. December 19, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    jose s.

    We bat that very question around for about five hours before we released the post. Here are a few distinctions that swayed our decision to run the post the way we did.

    First, I am not running against Pedroza for a Council seat in Santa Ana.

    Second, the post closes by pointing out the irony, and therefore humor, of the circumstances that caused the item to be posted.

    And third, the joke (irony) just wasn’t apparent without the title of the post written in the same deceptive manner as Art’s Bustamante post from October.

  5. December 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    LOL

    Now though, to complete the parallel, you have to have a behind-the-scenes virtual civil war among LOC bloggers trying to talk Prevatt into taking the post down.

  6. December 19, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Vern,

    Interesting perspective. However, the discussion was not a civil war. In fact, there was never any disagerrment on whether or not to post the story. Despite assertions to the contrary, I am not a dictator who posts unchecked. On this one the senior editorial team reached consensus regarding form and context before publication. We do that over here, it saves us from a lot of needless frustration.

  7. Terrible
    December 19, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    This is hilarious! I haven’t laughed so hard in weeks!

  8. John
    December 19, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    This kinda stuff is like a poor mans olberman-oreilly feud.

  9. Bladerunner
    December 20, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Brilliant. Of course it wasn’t right before the election so it lacks the Port-O-San quality of Art’s original, but a great spot nonetheless.

  10. jose s.
    December 20, 2008 at 12:47 am

    hey prevatt, if you have to think about this lame post “bat it around for 5 hours” like you claim it seems a huge waste of time and space. but if you feel the need to get into a lame little pissing contest with art to see who’s the bigger idiot you win by a nose. congrats. too bad you didnt “bat” around the idea of exploiting aloha for 5 hours you might have not gotten pounded by your readers and have dan come in and save you an hour after you posted.

  11. December 20, 2008 at 8:14 am

    Everyone-

    What’s the big deal? If you think this is funny, OK. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.

    And come on, Jose, don’t start the Aloha drama all over again! If you really care about Aloha, why not find her a home?

    I’m sick & tired of this needless drama. If you don’t like Chris’ snark, then read all the other diaries here. No one’s forcing you to read any particular diary.

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    December 20, 2008 at 8:56 am

    One trick pony, aren’t you Jose?

  13. Flowerszzz
    December 20, 2008 at 9:12 am

    LOL awesome – keep it at the top of the page all week. Kharma’s a bitch!

  14. December 20, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Chris,

    I see you have time to post silly stuff. Why is it you are refusing to address this week’s Janet Nguyen restaurant rating scandal? Every other blog in town has weighed in. Why not the Liberal OC?

  15. Mr. Smith
    December 20, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    The whole thing is immature and the kind of thing expected in high school. Focus on real discourse and stop with the personal agenda material. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to act in a responsible manner and not sink to the depths.

  16. December 21, 2008 at 2:27 am

    Okay Art,

    Who the heck do you think you are calling my posts silly. You’re the one trying to pump a non-story about a conflict of interest that doesn’t even exist.

    From the FPPC on Conflict of Interest:

    You have a conflict of interest with regard to a particular government decision if it is sufficiently likely that the outcome of the decision will have an important impact on your economic interests, and

    a significant portion of your jurisdiction does not also feel the important impact on their economic interests.

    In short Pedroza, your analysis is full of holes.

    There is no conflict of interest that barred Supervisor Nguyen from voting on the matter. No conflict in her receiving campaign contributions from restaurant owners either. Art, there IS NO STORY HERE! Period.

    There you go Art, I’ve weighed in on your non-story. Anything else?

  17. jose s.
    December 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    first of all andrew i wasnt talking to you so clamp it! the point i was trying to make prevatt is that after 5 hours of “batting” this around this is all they could come up with? 5 hours? as big a tool and cencorship whore that pedroza is he does make a good point about you not commenting on the janet issue. i mean you did go to our friend the bolsavik’s site and comment on it instead of here. you should of posted about that. anyway, this is a great non story.

  18. Dan Chmielewski
    December 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Art – we don’t take marching orders from scorned Jannie supporters like you. It is obvious you’re still reeling from Janet’s support of Carlos. Looks like she made the right call. And if Chris’s post was silly, is that an admission your “Bustamante – drunk driving” post during the election was also silly?

  19. December 21, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    jose s.

    Art you an idiot, or did you just not read the comment prior to yours? Oh wait, I already know the answer to those questions. Yes on both accounts.

    I am not plannng to elevate Pedroza’s non-story to a full post. Move on.

  20. Dan Chmielewski
    December 21, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Art — if you’re reading this, I did read your comment on OJ that i didn’t want to give you credit for breaking this non-story; that’s hogwash and a complete fabrication. Truth is Art, I don’t think about you all that much, but I will note that a certain Fullerton elected official has a defamation case against you for suggesting she was drunk in a post.

    Standards Art. Its good to have some.

  21. Steve Kim
    December 21, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Poor kids.

    Molested in Jesus’ name.

  22. December 21, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Turnabout is fair play. Art thought his post about Bustamante was funny, so he’s in no position to complain about this.

    Not that it will stop him from trying to get blood out that turnip of a “story’ he’s plumping about Janet’s supposed “conflict of interest.”

    Watching Art turn on Janet is reminiscent of old stories about people who conjure demons hoping to control them, but only to have the demon rend them instead.

Comments are closed.