JUSTICE IN AMERICA: WARREN YATES COMMENTARY………

I HEARD A JOKE THE OTHER DAY

IT WASN’T FUNNY

IT’S CALLED THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR

By Warren Yates 8-24-17


As a disclaimer for my commentaries, I wish to go on record as I have in numerous other commentaries that have been posted. I spent 27 years in law enforcement and fully support all legitimate and unbiased law enforcement in our country, state, county and city dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line 24 hours a day to protect us. The four keywords in my commentaries are “legitimate”, “dedicated”, “ethical” and “unbiased”. I totally reject an agenda driven prosecution whose sole purpose is not to find justice, but to decimate the lives, reputations and physical well-zero being of innocent people.

I wholeheartedly support all of law enforcement who performs their duties in a legitimate, dedicated, ethical and unbiased way. I would estimate that that covers 98 to 99% of our law enforcement communities. I have many friends in law enforcement and know that they all espouse those qualities.

In speaking of law enforcement, this includes the office of the Dist. Atty. the Dist. Atty. is the second highest law enforcement official in the county. The problem with Stanislaus County district attorney’s office is that their fearlessl liar leader like many of her minions within that office whether they be certain deputy district attorney’s, certain chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s or certain district attorney’s investigators, they obviously forgot about ethical and unbiased.

I am writing this article to show that there are some corrupt district attorney’s, some corrupt deputy district attorney’s, some corrupt chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s and certainly many but not all corrupt district attorney investigators. In this article, I am going to point out some egregious prosecutorial misconduct not only committed here in Stanislaus County but also in Sacramento County. Also in this article, I will show you the difference between the teeth in the New York State Bar and in the California State Bar. When I speak about teeth as you will see the California State Bar is only “gumming” it.

Since becoming a private investigator, I have worked mainly for criminal defense attorneys. In my law enforcement days, I was a “hook em and book em” cop. Every person I arrested was a legitimate arrest and I knew what to charge as I booked them. After bucking them and writing the police report I then went home I forgot about them until I had to go to court. I slept very well at night knowing that during the arrests I made, I did not have to try to cover something up like a cat does and you know what cats cover up.

One evening I was watching a show similar to Dateline or 20/20 and it was about a woman, Gloria Killian, who had been arrested, convicted and sent to prison for a murder she did not commit or take part in. As I highlight this story for you, you will see that some of the malicious and egregious violations of failing to disclose exculpatory evidence resulted in an innocent person sitting in state prison for 17 years. This prosecutorial misconduct happened in Sacramento County much like the prosecutorial misconduct that is currently happening in Stanislaus County.

I have seen from personal experience that certain law enforcement personnel are able to juggle the booking charges in order to punish an arrestee before they are even convicted of any offense. I have seen one of the most egregious misuses of authority and the law in two of the cases I have been an investigator on.

When a person is being arrested and rather than turning around and submitting to arrest they may struggle somewhat and slightly resist but they are eventually taken into custody with no injuries to either the arrestee or the officer. I am involved in two cases in which the officer did not like the arrestee and rather than adding misdemeanor 148 PC which is resisting delaying or obstructing an officer, they would add the felony charge of 69 PC which in part states 69.  (a) Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer…”. Now under California law police officers are considered executive officers.

The officer does not have to be injured or have to be struck but merely have a person threaten them to be charged with 69 PC. Officers who charge 69 PC rather than misdemeanor 148 PC know that bail goes from a few hundred or even release on citation to bail that can be in excess of $10,000. The officer knows of the majority of people arrested do not have $10,000 in the bank or even $1000 to secure the services of a bail bondsman. So, the arrestee sits in jail until his case is heard in court. This is punishment meted out by the police officer before the conviction of the arrestee.

There is a current case I am following here in Stanislaus County in which a multimillionaire entrepreneur that lives in luxury in San Francisco and who has businesses worldwide has been charged with more than 11 felony counts involving sexual misconduct with a girl starting when she was 14 years old. Some of the charges are sodomy, unlawful sexual intercourse with the perpetrator being over 21 years old and this guy is 43 and the victim is under 16, lewd and lascivious acts child under 14 or 15 with the defendant then 10 years older and oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age.

He is from Ukraine and is currently in court trying to get his passport back to allegedly check on some of his overseas businesses. It is felt that the reason he wishes to get his passport back is so that he can flee to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the United States. So far, he has been thwarted in his efforts to get his passport back. The reason this is mentioned is because when I looked at this person’s website and LinkedIn for his businesses, he stated he had gone to the University of California Boalt Hall School of Law. So I checked on the California State Bar website and he is not listed there.

But I saw on his resume that he stated he was a corporate attorney for a law firm in New York. So I checked the New York State bar website and looked him up there. Lo and behold, Saints preserve us, you can guess what I found. Since you can’t guess I’m going to go ahead and tell you so here we go.


“Respondent Dxxxxx Sxxxxx was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on November 16, 1998. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent has maintained his principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [*2]

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), on the ground that the federal criminal offense he pleaded guilty to, namely, unlawful access to stored communications and aiding and abetting thereof, if committed in New York, would be a felony and thus, is a proper predicate for automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [e]; see Matter of Kim, 209 AD2d 127 [1995]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b). In addition, respondent’s cross motion should be denied.

Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York nunc pro tunc to October 1, 2004.

The reason I am bringing this child sexual predators’ case up is to show that the New York State bar deals harshly with attorneys who violate the code of ethics of the lawyer’s oath as opposed to the California State Bar which is the joke of which I am speaking. Below is a brief overview of a case in which the Sacramento County Deputy Dist. Atty. caused an innocent person to sit in prison for 17 years.

In December 1981, two men disguised as telephone repairmen entered the home of an elderly couple in Rosemont, California, shot both occupants, killing one, and stole six suitcases full of silver.  An anonymous phone call led to the arrest of one of the perpetrators, Gary Masse.  Masse’s wife told police that a woman named “Gloria” planned the robbery.


Gloria Killian was initially arrested along with Masse, but charges against her were dropped after a preliminary hearing.  However, after Masse was convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life without parole, he contacted the Sacramento sheriff to see if he could reduce his sentence by testifying against two others he claimed were involved, Killian and a man named DeSantis.  Killian was rearrested and tried.  DeSantis testified at his separate trial that Killian was not involved in the crime and that he had never met her.  But Masse testified against Killian at her trial and, based solely on his testimony, a jury convicted Killian of first-degree murder, attempted murder, burglary, robbery, and conspiracy; she was sentenced to 32-years-to-life in prison.

The prosecution failed to give the defense (nothing to see here folks) letters from Masse seeking a deal in exchange for his testimony that indicated that he may have been lying.  Masse later admitted that much of the evidence he gave was false, including his testimony that he had not made a deal with the prosecution in exchange for testimony, and that Killian was the mastermind behind the robbery.  Killian’s conviction was overturned and she was released from prison on August 8, 2002 after serving a total of 17 ½ years on a sentence of 32 years to life for a crime that she did not commit. Originally, she was charged with the death penalty. Throughout her trial and incarceration, she always maintained her innocence.

For those of you following the Carson 8 case, the parallel to the Gloria Killian case is very obvious. In both cases we have criminal scumbags scurrying around like cockroaches trying to keep from being stepped on that will say anything a district attorney wants to hear to try to receive repeated continuances, a lighter sentence or better yet a dismissal of charges (which has happened to several criminals on the prosecution’s witness list in the Carson 8 case). You merely need to cross reference the witnesses on the district attorney’s witness list with the Stanislaus County court index to verify this. Or research on Dawgs Blog at Dawgonnit.com.

In the Gloria Killian case, In March 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that her conviction was based solely on perjured testimony and overturned her conviction. In 2008, Christopher Cleland, the District Attorney who prosecuted her, was tried by the State Bar of California and found guilty of unethical conduct in her case. Now why do you think this stalwart champion of justice Deputy Dist. Atty. Cleland was found guilty? Well let’s just see. (Don’t forget our Stanislaus County stalwart champions of justice, fladager and ferreira)

A few days after the murder, an anonymous phone call to Sacramento authorities identified DeSantis and Masse, who are cousins, as the perpetrators. When police went looking for Masse, his wife told them “a woman named Gloria” had planned the robbery. A few days later, Masse surrendered to the police and Killian was arrested. But after a preliminary hearing, charges against her were dismissed.

Masse was convicted of first degree felony murder in May 1983 and sentenced to life without possibility of parole. Soon after being sentenced, he contacted the Sacramento sheriff’s office “to see if any deals could be struck”, (Just like the Carson 8 case in Stanislaus County) according to the 9th Circuit decision.

After being told that prosecutors would help him obtain a sentence reduction, (Like a certain embezzler named Romero in Stanislaus County) Masse implicated his cousin, DeSantis, and Killian, who was a casual acquaintance. After he agreed to help the prosecutors, Masse’s sentence was recalled at the request of the prosecution and he remained in custody without a sentence for three years.

Killian was rearrested in June 1983 and charged, along with DeSantis. DeSantis was tried first and testified that Killian was not involved in the planning or commission of the crime and that he had never met her or heard of her.

DeSantis also testified that Masse had told him about a prior aborted attempt to rob the Davies family in which Masse’s wife tried to get into the home by telling the Davies she needed to make a phone call.

Masse was the key witness against Killian at her 1986 trial. In addition to testifying that she dreamed up the plot, Masse said that Killian accompanied him to the Davies home during the earlier robbery attempt. He also testified that after the robbery, she called to demand a share of the proceeds. Masse also swore that he had no leniency deal with the prosecution. (Just like Ronald Glenn Cooper Jr. and Michael Cooley here in Stanislaus County. Move along folks. Nothing to see here!!!). Really? Really?

Killian was convicted of first degree felony murder, robbery and conspiracy and received a sentence of 32 years to life.

The 9th Circuit decision emphasized that Masse was the “make or break witness” against her.

After Killian exhausted her state court appeals, Genego raised perjury allegations at a hearing before federal Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows in Sacramento in 2000.

At that hearing, Masse admitted that he had told several lies in the crucial elements of his testimony. Among them were that in reality he had a leniency deal, that Killian was not the “master planner” of the robbery and that she had not called demanding a share of the robbery proceeds.

“Masse’s disregard for the truth is best revealed by a letter he wrote to the prosecutor shortly after Killian’s trial [while awaiting his own resentencing] in which he emphasized that he ‘lied [his] ass off on the stand’ for the government”, (Just like the prosecution witnesses in the Carson 8 case here in Stanislaus County) Hawkins noted in his opinion Wednesday.

That letter was never disclosed to Killian; nor was one that prosecutors sent under seal to a Sacramento trial judge stating its intention to support Masse’s resentencing as a result of his cooperation. Masse subsequently had his sentence reduced to life with possibility of parole.

Read transcript.of.garry.masse.letter-2

The letters were discovered years later in DeSantis’ challenge to his death sentence and were given to Genego by DeSantis’ attorneys.

Masse also admitted at the hearing before Hollows that if he had told the truth at Killian’s trial, “it would have taken Killian out of participating in the crime,” the 9th Circuit decision noted.

Despite Masse’s admissions, Hollows recommended to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell that the conviction be upheld; Burrell accepted the recommendation.

Burrell ruled that the level of prejudice Killian suffered as a result of each perjurious statement was insufficient to conclude that reasonable jurors would have doubts about the verdict they rendered.

But the appeals court said that Burrell had interpreted the relevant cases too narrowly.

“Because Masse perjured himself several times (Like the prosecution witnesses in the Carson 8 case) and because he was the ‘make or break witness’ for the state, there is a reasonable probability that, without all the perjury, the result of the [trial] would have been different,” Judge Hawkins wrote. His decision was joined by Judges Procter Hug Jr. and Dorothy W. Nelson.

The appellate judges also emphasized that the prosecutors “took advantage of Masse’s perjury, regarding his deal, arguing at closing that ‘we have nothing to do with how much time Gary Masse serves.'”


Now retired Deputy DA Christopher Cleland

Christopher T. Cleland, the Sacramento deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case, said he had not yet read the decision, but characterized it as “a gross miscarriage.”

Cleland said he still believes that Masse told the truth at trial. “The 9th Circuit isn’t going to tell me [otherwise],” he said.

Asked about the letter in which Masse admitted lying, Cleland said it was simply “an attempt to get our attention” while Masse was awaiting resentencing. “It is much ado about nothing.”

But veteran defense lawyer Genego described the case “as one of the most egregious and serious violations of a person’s right to a fair trial that I have ever seen.”

Genego said, “There is no question that the prosecutors had an ethical obligation to bring that letter to the attention of the court and Killian or her lawyer.”

Also watch this video discussing the deals made to the original person convicted:

Death Row Stories: Gloria Killian (Note: 2hr video.) 15 minuet mark gets to killers deal and 28 min. mark Masse gets special visits at home. (sound familiar?)


Brady versus Maryland was decided May 13, 1963. The gist of Brady versus Maryland is that all exculpatory evidence that the district attorney’s office has must be disclosed to the defense with no exceptions. Those that withhold exculpatory evidence can be criminally prosecuted. Gloria Killian’s case was heard in 1986.

So, people, in this example we have a pompous ass deputy district attorney 23 years later that has no regard to abide by the law and in fact contemptuously responds to the 9th Circuit Court by telling the court that it won’t tell him otherwise. There is no question that this pompous ass as no respect to federal court. By the way, this pompous asses name is Christopher T. Cleland.

After this innocent woman spent 17 and a half years locked in a state prison before she was exonerated, pompous ass Cleland states “It is much ado about nothing”. The unmitigated gall that pompous ass Cleland exhibits in his remarks places him under the pond slime in a septic tank as far as compassion and credibility goes. His utter disdain and lack of remorse for robbing a young woman of the middle years of her life by himself violating the law is beyond comprehension.

In 2008, pompous ass turd Christopher Cleland, the district attorney who prosecuted her, was tried by the State Bar of California and found guilty of unethical conduct in her case. Now I am sure that the California State Bar must have levied serious repercussions against pompous ass Cleland. There are many consequences I could suggest to show pompous ass Cleland that he is not above the law and in fact subject to it. At the very least, castration
I mean castigation should include but not be limited to permanent disbarment. So I am quite sure that the California State Bar will make an example out of pompous ass Cleland as a deterrent to other lawyers who wish to violate the law and the principles of Brady versus Maryland. (Hint:It didn’t deter fladager and ferreira from punching Brady vs Maryland in the gut in the Carson 8 hearing. They are just as big pompous asses as turd Cleland was).

So let’s see what kind of an example the State Bar made out of pompous ass turd Cleland after he broke the law, cost a young woman 17 years of her life in prison for something she didn’t do and then slap the 9th Circuit Court in the face because of their decision overturning his egregious and unlawful prosecution of an innocent person.

So I looked up pompous ass Cleland on the State Bar website and here is what it turned up:

Attorney Search

Christopher Thomas Cleland – #44976

Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 44976    
Address: 716 34th St
Sacramento, CA 95816-3822
Phone Number: (916) 446-7423
Fax Number: Not Available
Email: Not Available 
County: Sacramento Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA
District: District 3    
Sections: None Law School: Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
1/15/1970 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Disciplinary and Related Actions
This member has no public record of discipline.
Administrative Actions
This member has no public record of administrative actions.

The State Bar website says pompous ass Cleveland has no public record of discipline and no public record of administrative actions. However, if you go to the following website: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/03/14/cleland.-.prosecutor.admonishment.pdf you will see that after the trial he was severely beaten and flogged by the State Bar with an”admonishment”. Now you can see why fladager and ferreira have no fear of violating the law and Brady versus Maryland. That is why State Bar is nothing but a laughingstock for people who follow alleged justice in commiefornia.

And as you can see pompous ass turd Cleland is still practicing law in Sacramento California. He retired from the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and is now in private practice practicing. He will always be practicing because he will never get it right. It makes me wonder how some lowlife alleged professionals can sleep at night knowing they robbed a young woman of 17 years of her life. But then I remembered, lowlifes have no conscience.

Citizens do not waste your time trying to get an incompetent, useless, inapt, bundling, ineffectual and lazy attorney to be held accountable by the commiefornia State Bar. You would have much more success urinating on a 10,000 acre forest fire. The best and only solution would be to sue the attorney civil court for ineffectual counsel.

Now to clarify the difference between the New York State Bar and the commiefornia State Bar, I will remind you that the predator pedophile mentioned earlier in this article pled guilty to illegal computer hacking crimes which if committed in New York would be a felony.

On October 1, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, respondent pleaded guilty to Count one of the indictment, namely, unlawful access to stored communications and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 USC subsection 2701 and 2 (b), which is a federal felony. Count one involved the deletion of a voicemail on August 27, 2003.

On January 3, 2005, respondent was sentenced to probation for a term of two years, ordered to pay a $5000 fine and a special assessment of $100.

October 20, 2005, the predator pedophile was disbarred in the state of New York. It took only nine months for the State Bar of New York to disbar this crooked predator pedophile attorney for a federal offense of what amounted to computer hacking for profit.

Gloria Killian was released in August 2002 after being exonerated. On November 4, 2008, more than six years later after pompous ass Cleland’s trial at the state bar in commiefornia, he was slapped on the wrist. What a terribly egregious miscarriage of justice. Not only that pompous ass Cleveland didn’t have to be held accountable for his egregious prosecutorial misconduct but he is still allowed to practice law. There can be little doubt as to why the public has a somewhat negative opinion about attorneys and the commiefornia State Bar.

I had intended to write more but have to wrap this article up for now and get it out. Plus, I’m tired and sick of organizations that hold their own kind to a lesser standard than what is expected of them.

Moral of the story is don’t waste your time complaining about an attorney to the commiefornia State Bar. They are getting tired of slapping people on the wrist.


Advertisements

2 thoughts on “JUSTICE IN AMERICA: WARREN YATES COMMENTARY………

  1. this reminds me to ask about frank carsons right to a speedy trial, the last i heard he had been denied that by judge zuniga….is there something that was not mentioned that would make this ok? i truly hope he does not let them get away with what they have done, thank you and everyone else involved with dawgs blog for keeping this circus in the open..

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.