A MEDIA OUTLET
PO BOX 1115
HUGHSON, CA. 95326
MR. DAVE HARRIS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STANISLAUS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
832 12th ST.
Modesto Ca. 95354
Thank you for your response.
I will discuss what you call letter #2 first.
In regard to the confidentiality claimed as per 1040 of the evidence code, it was revealed in the preliminary hearing by Dale Lingerfelt that he made the decision to put Maranda Dykes in the witness protection plan and had referred to her as CI 14 – 3. On November 20, 2015 Marlisa Ferreira asked Investigator Lingerfelt about his decision to put Maranda Dykes in witness protection plan, (page 33 line 28), (and continued to page 34 lines 1 through 12). Thus, making the 1040 claim invalid as is been publicly declared in a courtroom, open to the public, the courtroom was not sealed for this testimony I was personally present.
I’m sorry for any misunderstanding you may have regarding my inquiry, but I felt that I’ve made it very clear as to the cost involved in providing that witness protection program to Maranda Dykes. As you know there are expenses involved with such an operation and it’s become common knowledge that additional expenses were incurred by the County as to that witness protection of Ms. Dykes. This all falls under the freedom of information act of the public records of taxpayer’s expenses, this falls under Government code sections 6250 – 6253 as noted in my original request(s).
Again, I request all expenditures and associated costs in the witness protection of Maranda “Sunny” Dykes that was initiated and instituted by at least one investigator from the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office.
My mentioning of Dale Lingerfelt was because he was that investigator that testified in the preliminary hearing in the above citation and taking that action upon himself with no prior authorization or discussion with superiors. And is now not employed by Stanislaus County.
In addition, there was billing expenses for that protection, that included cell phones, damage to hotel rooms, and other assorted expenses that were absorbed by the taxpayers of Stanislaus County.
I again request under Government code sections 6250 – 6253 that all records be revealed in the expenses of that activity.
Regarding what you referred to as letter #1, again under Government code section 6250 – 6253, government agencies are required to show transparency in how the taxpayer’s money is being spent. A referral to the Board of Supervisors is an inadequate attempt to uphold your responsibility of informing the public.
Any government agency has a responsibility of accountability to the taxpayers on what is being spent in any office in the county, state, federal government. Any agency that does not keep an accounting of their activities, at least in some way shape or form, is either inept or incompetent. I personally believe that the Stanislaus District Attorney’s Office is neither. It just appears that there is concern about the public being informed which shows a lack of transparency and an underlying message of something to hide. I personally do not hope that is the case and we can clarify this with a simple accounting.
A public records request under California Government code section 6250 – 6253 of the witness protection of one Maranda “Sunny” Dykes, to include all expenditures and expenses of that program that was paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Also requesting an accounting of all expenses incurred by the Frank Carson et al. criminal case, #1490969, in Stanislaus Superior Court. This is to include but not limited to investigations, witness accommodations, protection plans, court expenses, both preliminary hearing and trial, investigators expenses, and any other associated costs.
Your diligence in this matter is extremely appreciated by me and the taxpayers of this county.
Please feel free to contact me anytime with any further questions
HELP DAWGS BLOG