By Marty Carlson


Above picture taken by

Frank Carson just before Jacobson

slapped camera out of his hand


As everybody knows AJ Pontillo has filed a civil rights lawsuit against Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christiansen, Dist. Atty. Birgit Fladager, the city of Modesto, Dave Harris, DOJ agent Jon Reinccius, and Dist. Atty. investigator Steve Jacobson. The attorneys for the defendants of all parties involved filed a motion to this business against all parties. These motions were filed in September 2017.

As you will read below the motion was denied in part only in the area where Steve Jacobson is concerned.

As you’ll see on the last page the motion to dismiss brought on behalf of defendant city of Modesto and Reineccius are granted.

The motion to dismiss brought on behalf of the Stanislaus County defendants is denied as to plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against defendant Jacobson but granted in all other respects.

So, what this all means is all named defendants other than defendant Steve Jacobson are dismissed from this action.

Just for information tomorrow in the Frank Carson et al. case is a Pitchess motion against Steve Jacobson is scheduled to be heard.

read ruling below

judge ruling held jacobson







The hearing finally starting around 10:55 AM with Frank Carson addressing the court saying most of the property has been located and returned but there is still no bond tracker program that has been returned to a Jeep as of yet. Deputy DA Jeff Legaro, stated that the paperwork from the FBI showed that the property seized during the search warrant had been returned in January 2015.

He noted that all the hard drives and the programs taken originally after the hard drives had been imaged by the Department of Insurance. DOI apparently does not want to give up the drives themselves. He stated it appeared that the Department of Insurance was requiring a court order to return the property.

Frank Carson noted that the hard drive situation from the amount of time that’s past may make them outdated so it is redundant probably anyway. He’s asking the Department of Insurance to provide copies and if need be he would even be willing to pay for the equipment needed to copy them.

The DA stated that some of the hydrides have been returned to someone by the name of Linda Stevenson it was a name that I had not heard before, and it appears are still trying to figure it out.

But the main reason they were here is to find out where the bond tracker program is that AJ uses in his bail bonds business. DA investigator Steve Jacobson had written a report stating that he had use the bond tracker program during the Cory Kaufman case. At this time Steve Jacobson took the stand.

Frank Carson asked investigator Jacobson if he had use that program in AG’s case around December 2014 after he had been acquitted. He stated he had not use the program, but he had told another officer to do so. When inquired about a report that he had written in regards to that subject he stated that he had signed off on that report that he has access that program to search for people in the Korey Kaufman homicide.

The district attorney objected saying the Frank Carson in his motion stated that Ajay the only one license allowed to use and run names, and Frank Carson is claiming Steve Jacobson was using the program after AJ is acquitted, and in other cases and that is not true. Frank Carson noted that Steve Jacobson said he had done it but now says another officer had access the software. Frank Carson asked if the program or software was using any of the case and I noticed that Steve Jacobson was getting extremely aggravated and grimacing badly on the stand, something I noticed he does not done before.

In fact, when Frank Carson asked him a question he would repeat and rephrase the question leading to constant objections by Frank Carson. Basically, he said there was no use of the software in any other case only in the Cory Kaufman and Pontillo case. Frank Carson also asked if the report that was written contains a total amount of use of that program, examining the possibility of any other use in any other cases unrelated to these people. Steve Jacobson stated it was not used anywhere else in the District Attorney’s Office did not keep a copy of the program at any time, but then admitted they had used it. He stated that the Department of Insurance had the sole copy of the bond tracker program. But then later said that the FBI had a copy, and then the department assurance also had a copy.

Steve Jacobson stated the department assurance received the software after the FBI had seized it during a search warrant. Frank Carson then asked Steve Jacobson if he had taken any of the drugs that were seized during the searches. Steve Jacobson said he did not participate using the drugs or the destruction of those same drugs.

Also noted during this time Steve Jacobson was making direct comments to Frank Carson like “you mean the homicide that your accused of” which led to objections of course. In a couple of the exchanges led to some responses from the gallery which was plentiful at the time, mostly attorneys.

Investigator Jacobson also noted that the department of insurance could not get the program to work until they retain one from the manufacturer, but still never did explain if we had a search warrant to access that information, which is highly confidential information, or if they had a warrant to use AJ Pontillo’s logons and licensing numbers in the software and noted to at this time Steve Jacobson was getting extremely frustrated and was giving long narrative type answers, and using a lot of sarcasm towards Frank Carson.

Frank Carson also noted that they had to access AJ’s particular logons to look at the people they were interested in looking at. Frank Carson also inquired if he would use that software prior to 2014 and he stated he had not. Frank Carson again noted that a report written in February 2015 says that Jacobson had use the software, but now is saying somebody else had done it in his direction.

There were multiple objections at this point by the district attorney stating that this is an issue that Frank Carson needs to take up with the FBI and the Department of Insurance, and I noted Steve Jacobson had a constant grimace on his face and looked extremely aggravated.

And Frank Carson noted to the court what is being testified to now is not what was said report. Frank Carson requested another hearing be held as they need to bring the other investigator in that was directed to access the software according to Steve Jacobson at this point.

Jacobson also noted he did not recall if he had told the other agent by the name of the Reniscus (sp?) In person or on the phone, or in writing to look at the software.

Very contentious hearing the lasted about 40 minutes this is been rescheduled for another hearing on January 8 at 8:30 AM in department seven.


This morning I received a private message on Facebook asking me this:


This is a question I’m sure many people are asking in answer is very simple but strange.

The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office as a policy that they do not return seized property even after an acquittal in a case. This fact was brought out by Marlisa Ferreira during one of the hearings where it was discussed about returning some of Georgia DeFilippo’s property after she was not held to answer.

Deputy DA Marlisa Ferreira stated in court on the record that the District Attorney’s Office as a standing policy they do not return property after a case has been adjudicated even when there’s an acquittal.

So even in AJ Pontillo’s case that has been adjudicated for almost 2 years where he was fully acquitted, and the property was seized I believe in 2008. This property was seized by Stanislaus County district attorney investigators and the same investigators also “double badge” as federal officers and attach themselves to agencies like the FBI, DEA, and ICE etc.

This gives them a large amount of federal resources that there is not available on the local level. This also means then they are federal officers they also have the ability to retrieve that same property that the DAs office is claiming to be in federal jurisdiction now, at least in AJ’s case.

California Penal Code Section 487 PC: Grand Theft

1. Definition and Elements of the Crime

Grand theft under California Penal Code Section 487 PC covers theft offenses that would not qualify as petty theft, namely grand theft charges apply when:

  1. The theft involves a loss in excess of $950
  2. The item stolen is a car or a gun
  3. OR the item stolen was physically and directly taken off of a person.

In many cases, grand theft may be shoplifting where the sum of the items taken exceeds $950. This is fairly common in many higher-end luxury department stores, where stealing a few articles of clothing can easily result in grand theft by larceny charges. To prove grand theft by larceny, the following elements must be present:

  1. The defendant took someone else’s property.
  2. He or she did so without the owner’s consent
  3. The defendant intended to take this property away from the true owner when he or she seized it
  4. The defendant moved or kept the property or with the intent to permanently deprive.
  5. AND the value of the property exceeded $950, the property was a firearm or automobile, OR the property was taken directly off the person of someone else.



By Marty Carlson



This morning in department seven of the Stanislaus Superior Court begin had a hearing regarding AJ Pontillo efforts to have property returned to him after the was seized in the search warrant on December 23, 2008. They have had several hearings in this matter and his property is slowly being return but not all at once.

Also of note for some reason the District Attorney’s Office was represented by a DDA by the name of Lugero, there was an attorney from the state Atty. Gen.’s office present. It is not known exactly why he was there and he did not contribute anything to the hearing, but was sitting next to the district attorney in the courtroom.

The issue today before judge Steffens, and represented by Frank Carson, 11 surveillance hard drives for seized during the search warrant and only four have been returned, and they have been made unusable. The hard drives had been forcibly opened by the screws that were covered by warranty stickers. They are unable to get any previous videos or use them at this time as it will not function. Frank Carson presented to the court one of the hard drive to been returned in the evidence sticker on the hard drive stated it’d been originally marked by evidence by Steve Jacobson of the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office.

The second issue was regarding some bond tracking software that tissue through the Department of Insurance to bail bondsman. This tracking software has confidential information concerning people who are in the bail system. In addition, Frank Carson argued to the court that this bond tracking system was access by district attorney investigator Steve Jacobson in sometime around 2014. Frank Carson’s contention was that Steve Jacobson has admitted on the stand in the past of accessing the bail tracking system during his investigation of the Korey Kauffman alleged homicide.

The DAs office is claiming that all property had been returned. In addition, he said that there were some pharmaceuticals that were withheld and destroyed by the Federal Bureau of investigations. Frank Carson then requested a declaration of facts of the inventory and destruction of all the assets seized by the Jacobson. His contention is that has not been put out to be destroyed or possibly not even turned over to the FBI.

The district attorneys responded with the FBI says drugs were destroyed, and federal warrants were obtained for search warrants to destroy the property. He stated the FBI is in contact with the US attorney’s office which means this court may not have jurisdiction because is now a federal matter.

Frank Carson reiterated that the District Attorney’s Office has been in total control of this whole situation from the start that is there investigators, who also double badge is federal investigators at times for additional resources. Those same investigators have the authority to return the property.

Judge Steffens stated he’s not sure if he actually has authority to tell the FBI what to do.

Frank Carson again requested the district attorney’s office to the order to completely comply with the request as AJ has been totally acquitted on all charges. See article HERE

Again, the District Attorney’s Office stated that items were returned other than the expired medicines, and the bond tracking system program was used by the District Attorney’s Office it would be the providing companies complaint as they were the ones accessed. Again, he stated the program has been returned. It also stated that it is a Department of Justice issue. Shortly thereafter Mr. Lugero stated he wasn’t exactly sure if the District Attorney’s Office still has a bond tracking program.

Frank Carson stated that Steve Jacobson has stated on the stand he had used AJ Pontillo’s bond tracking program and logins during his investigation of the Korey Kauffman case, and then they past hearings of this issue has preferred to stay outside so it appears he does not want to be forced to make a formal declaration in court.

Again, the district attorney stated that he’s not sure that the court has authority in some of these matters.

Judge Steffens at this time read from a transcript of Steve Jacobson’s testimony in February 11, 2015, and he stated that he had used AJ’s bond tracking program in the Frank Carson case.

Again, the district attorney stated he’s unsure if it was actually done, even though the judge just read him a transcript of Jacobson’s previous testimony.

Frank Carson also stated at this time that his client AJ Pontillo is willing to take the stand under oath the state he has not received the bond tracking program back from investigators.

The District Attorney’s Office stated they will try to track down and locate the property.

Frank Carson at this time the requested an additional hearing be set so Steve Jacobson could be put under oath and answer questions about property returned and use of the bond tracking program under AJ’s name.

So, this judge at this time schedule December 4, 2017 at 830 in department for further hearing on this.




By Marty Carlson



Stanislaus county DA’s has been ordered to return AJ Pontillo’s property that was seized in search warrants. See Judge Steffens previous order HERE. Some has been returned but most have not like what is noted in the minute order below.

Keep in mind AJ was acquitted of all charges by a jury in December 2014.

As noted by Marlisa Ferreira in the Frank Carson proceedings, BTW Frank Carson is representing AJ in the proceedings now going on, has stated on record that the District Attorney’s office has a policy of not returning property taken after cases have been adjudicated. She stated it requires a court order even if acquitted. (In reference to Georgia Defillipo property).

Here is Judge Steffens latest order:


Just a little back history and the Illusions that the District Attorney’s office lives in. 

Keep in mind AJ was acquitted, READ AQUITTAL HERE of all charges, but paid a large price in the loss of a wife and a child, SEE WIFES DEATH HERE, both at once during this ordeal.

Justice in America: Frank Carson similarities

Not an exact case in Carson and AJ Pontillo’s case too, but very similar in misconduct of prosecutors in California makes me wonder how many other people have been affected in this way too.

A long video but extremely interesting to the feelings of no perjury charges filed against parties involved. (Mostly DA’s misrepresentations to the court)

The hearing seemed largely routine until a state prosecutor approached the lectern.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Kevin R. Vienna was there to urge three judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold murder convictions against Johnny Baca for two 1995 killings in Riverside County. Other courts had already determined that prosecutors had presented false evidence in Baca’s trial but upheld the verdicts anyway.

Vienna had barely started his argument when the pummeling began.

Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.”

Judge Kim Wardlaw wanted to know why Riverside County prosecutors presented a murder-for-hire case against the killer but did not charge the man they said had arranged the killings.

“It looks terrible,” said Judge William Fletcher.

The January hearing in Pasadena, posted online under new 9th Circuit policies, provided a rare and critical examination of a murder case in which prosecutors presented false evidence but were never investigated or disciplined.

The low-profile case probably would have gone unnoticed if not for the video, which attorneys emailed to other attorneys and debated on blogs.

The 9th Circuit keeps seeing this misconduct over and over again. This is one way they can really call attention to it. – Gerald Uelmen, of the Santa Clara University School of Law

In a series of searing questions, the three judges expressed frustration and anger that California state judges were not cracking down on prosecutorial misconduct. By law, federal judges are supposed to defer to the decisions of state court judges.

Prosecutors “got caught this time but they are going to keep doing it because they have state judges who are willing to look the other way,” Kozinski said.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said the judges’ questions and tone showed they had lost patience with California courts. State judges are supposed to refer errant lawyers, including prosecutors, to the state bar for discipline, but they rarely do, Uelmen said.

“It is a cumulative type thing,” Uelmen said. “The 9th Circuit keeps seeing this misconduct over and over again. This is one way they can really call attention to it.”

A 2010 report by the Northern California Innocence Project cited 707 cases in which state courts found prosecutorial misconduct over 11 years. Only six of the prosecutors were disciplined, and the courts upheld 80% of the convictions in spite of the improprieties, the study found.

The case that sparked the court’s recent outrage involved the killing of John Adair and his live-in partner, John Mix, two decades ago. Baca, a friend of Adair’s adopted son, was working as a houseboy for the couple.

A jailhouse informant testified that Baca had confided the son planned the killing. The two were going to split Adair’s inheritance, the informant said. Other witnesses testified that Adair was planning to disinherit his son, who was never charged in the case.

Baca was tried twice and found guilty both times. A state appeals court overturned the first verdict. The second withstood an appeal, even though the state court found the informant and a Riverside County prosecutor had given false testimony.

The informant falsely testified he had asked for and received no favors. The prosecutor falsely corroborated that on the stand, according to court records. Baca was sentenced to 70 years to life.

Patrick J. Hennessey Jr., who has represented Baca on appeal for nearly two decades, said he had never seen such an “egregious” case of prosecutorial misconduct.

“That is what bothered me,” Hennessey said. “There was never a fair discussion of how serious the issue was.”

A U.S. magistrate who next examined the case said Baca might not have been convicted of first-degree murder but for the false testimony. He said the federal court nevertheless was supposed to defer to the state courts.

“Sadly, this informant’s lies were bolstered by a Deputy District Attorney, who also lied,” wrote Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. “What is obvious … is that the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office turned a blind eye to fundamental principles of justice to obtain a conviction.”

Armed with the magistrate’s report, the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel appeared incredulous about the facts of the case.

Wardlaw, a Clinton appointee, complained that California’s courts were “condoning” prosecutorial misconduct by upholding verdicts, a rare public criticism of her fellow judges. She suggested that state judges, who must be approved by voters, fear inciting the public’s wrath. Federal judges are appointed for life.

“I understand why they do that,” Wardlaw said. “They are elected judges. They are not going to be reversing these things.”

Fletcher, another Clinton appointee, observed that the state’s attorney general had fought “tooth and nail” more than a decade ago to prevent a court from seeing a transcript that revealed the false evidence.

“It would look terrible in an opinion when we write it up and name names,” Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, told the government lawyer. “Would your name be on?”

Vienna said he was not involved in the case at the time, but named others in the office.

Kozinski demanded to know why the informant and the testifying prosecutor were not charged with perjury. He suggested the state bar should pull the law license of the prosecutor who presented the evidence.

Retired Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Vinegrad, who prosecuted Baca in both trials, said in an interview that he did not suspect deceit. He said he has since learned that his colleague who falsely testified — former Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert Spira — had memory problems and may have been confused. Spira, who no longer practices law, could not be reached for comment.

Vinegrad also said he believed in the murder-for-hire case he presented, but that there was not enough evidence to charge the son. The informant’s testimony against the son would not have been admissible under legal rules at the time, Vinegrad said.

Kozinski, who in the past has spoken out about an “epidemic” of prosecutorial misconduct, asked Vienna whether Harris was aware of the case. Vienna indicated she probably was not. Kozinski told him to get her attention within 48 hours. Harris would need to take action if her office wanted to avoid an embarrassing ruling, Kozinski said.

“Make sure she understands the gravity of the situation,” Kozinski said, adding that the case “speaks very poorly for the attorney general’s office.”

Harris, a candidate for U.S. Senate, changed course. Her office decided last week not to oppose Baca’s challenge.

Mike Hestrin, Riverside County’s newly elected district attorney, did not concede that the prosecutors’ “misconduct” was intentional, but said his office would investigate the prosecutors’ actions and retry Baca.

There really is some issues here that need to be addressed.