by Marty Carlson

April 25, 2017

Several media reports have reported that the nearly $1 billion in controversy all side deals that were made to complete the gas tax embezzlement of the taxpayers of California have been approved by the legislature.

Anthony Canella

Prior to the April 6 vote for the tax, funding for a handful of transportation projects had surfaced in a separate bill, See SB 132 .The projects will benefit the districts represented by Adam Gray, Democrat Merced; Sen. Anthony Cannella, Republican series; assemblywoman Sabrina Cervantes, Democrat Corona; and Sen. Richard Roth, Democrat Riverside.

All for those lawmakers voted in favor of the gas tax that was passed without a vote spare.

Interesting enough part of that deal passed Monday, was Senate Bill 496, by Anthony Cannella that would protect architects, engineers and other design professionals against legal claims made by public agencies. Cannella is an engineer.

It is asserted the gas tax will generate more than $5 billion per year for road repairs and local transit projects by indefinitely increasing gas tax and diesel taxes and hiking vehicle registration fees. The state claims it will cost the average driver roughly $10 per month or less. It’s

I guess that is the price of a cheap whore these days.

It appears that Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, has delayed signing the transportation bill that’s been on his desk, and that he championed with his whorish behavior because he was waiting for the “side deals,” which he called “arrangements”

sadly it appears this type of behavior is becoming the normal and not the exception with lawmakers anymore. The true characters of many of these people come out once they realize they are beginning to turn out or not get or run for reelection and do not need to pander for votes.



According to a Texas student, modern veganism is too focused on rich, white-people vegans, and it needs to become more intersectional and inclusive.

In an article titled “Vegans must feed everyone, not just wealthy white people,” Audrey Larcher opens by explaining that the modern image of a vegan is “some hipster” who is “probably slender” and “definitely white” — and that’s a major, major problem.

“White veganism — which refers to the dominant cruelty-free culture of wealth, privilege and exclusivity — is not an option for most people.” “If vegans want to promote sustainable and compassionate diets for the world, their communities must be intersectional,” she continues.

“Instead of promoting the foods of foreign cultures, vegans go great lengths to reinvent traditional foods which rely on animal products to taste good,” she explains. According to Larcher, things like the vegan imitation-cheese industry are problematic because a lot of their products and the grocery stores that sell them are expensive, and that’s an example of “cultural exclusivity.” Being a white, American imitation-cheese-eating vegan definitely is a certain culture (I almost left it at “cult”) of its own, and one that certainly is available only to people with a certain means. But everything in the world is like that. For example, rich people also pay a ton of money to take spin classes at SoulCycle instead of just going for a run, and that, too is a culture (cult!) of its own. Take any diet or interest in the world, and there is automatically going to be some sort of high-end, snobby version of it where the prices are high just because there are wealthy people out there who will pay them (and then talk with their wealthy friends about how, like, amazing their $34 candlelit spin class was and that they totally needed to go because they ate way too many $24 zucchini-and-cashew-cheese enchiladas

“Most vegan communities offer no sympathy to victims of racism, appropriating minorities’ struggles to advance their own cause, so I guess “Black lives matter. . . more than Chickens or Cows, (according to her)

Another SJW trying to make a name for herself riding the back of the BLM joke of a movement.





Special to The Bee

Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative Democrats recently announced a deal to create a new car tax and raise the state’s gas tax by 40 percent. If passed, the proposal would cost Californians $52 billion over the course of a decade.

If you thought you were safe because you drive an electric vehicle, the transportation package includes a new $100 annual fee for zero emission vehicles. Elite, cosmopolitan Democrats claim our roads can’t be fixed with the money we already send to Sacramento. Why not?

California residents pay a hefty premium to live in the state. You’d think in return we’d at least have high-quality roads. Instead, our state’s roads are consistently ranked as some of the worst in the nation, with the Bay Area leading the way.

Democratic leaders are calling this massive tax hike a “pay-as-you-go” plan. That’s a rather curious name when you consider the following:

▪ Californians already pay $4.5 billion to $5 billion a year in fuel taxes alone. That’s not including weight fees, registration fees or local sales taxes.

▪ According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s failing cap-and-trade program adds an additional 12 cents per gallon to fuel costs. That’s an additional $2 billion a year, much of which has been directed to high-speed rail. Not one cent has gone toward fixing roads.

▪ State revenues have grown by nearly 50 percent since 2008, from $83 billion to $122 billion today.

If there isn’t enough money for roads after all we’ve paid, it makes you wonder what Californians have been paying for the whole time.

If Brown’s plan to raise the gas tax passes, we could end up paying as much as 80 cents in combined federal and state taxes for each gallon of gasoline – a rate far higher than any other state. Not to mention we already have some of the highest gas prices in the nation.

Democrats have had nearly complete control over state government for several years. Not investing in our roads sooner makes you wonder if they have intentionally let our infrastructure crumble to create support for tax hikes.

Even still, California already leads the nation in high taxes and poverty. But this fact hasn’t deterred lawmakers from pushing hard to ram this so-called deal through the Legislature with a self-imposed deadline of April 6.

The governor claims this proposal has a few things even conservatives will like, such a constitutional mandate that the money collected from these colossal tax hikes be spent on transportation. At first glance, you might be fooled into thinking that’s a good thing.

However, Californians have been down this road twice before.

In 2002, voters passed Proposition 42, a constitutional amendment meant to ensure that motor vehicle sales taxes be used for transportation purposes. Voters followed up in 2006 with Proposition 1A, because politicians found loopholes to spend these dollars on other projects.

Critics who say we need higher taxes haven’t been to a state like Arizona, which has a much lower gas tax of 18 cents per gallon and extreme weather conditions that destroy roads. Yet, Arizona has far better roads than California.

Budgets are about setting priorities, and we should drive home that point by holding our elected officials accountable for the decisions they’ve made with the money we send to Sacramento.

Call your legislative representative and tell them you’re already paying a lot for roads. The money just needs to be spent properly.

Read more here:






A week ago, Marlisa Ferreira, the deputy district attorney that’s in charge of the Frank Carson et al. preliminary hearing had made rebuttal to the defense attorneys’ final arguments. I found her rebuttal to be extremely uninformed and nothing but opinion as it appeared she had no facts or evidence to back up her claims. This here is going to be a multipart series and a critique of that argument.

She went down the list throughout the final rebuttal, listing the overt acts. In her rebuttal, she was talking at a very fast rate and it was difficult to keep up with and take notes too. This is the information that I came away with as factually as I can.


It must be noted too that when she started her final arguments for some reasons, there were additional six investigators lined up behind inside of the bar. Those investigators were Modesto police Dept. Detective John Evers, DA investigator Dale Lingerfelt, Sheriff’s Dept. Deputy Corey Brown, John Brody CDCR, Frank Navarro Turlock PD, and Sheriff’s Dept. Deputy Barringer. And Kirk Bunch at the DA’s side.

Also of note during this time of this 17-month hearing, these officers have been there on a daily basis, and for some reason they felt the need to be there constantly even when they were not testifying. Also, noted during this 17-month hearing, they were constantly monitoring the people in the gallery and taking pictures at the parking lot somehow feeling the need to monitor people coming to court or maybe just for other reasons.

It appears to me that the officers spending all that time in court could have made better use in actual law enforcement capacities as these are all detectives and there is a large amount of crime in this area that was not being addressed by these officers who are in court and not out there doing their jobs. In John Evers case, the days that he was not in court; which are few, he was then meeting Kirk Bunch and Marlisa at lunchtime spending 1 ½ to 2 hours with them during the day. Then he came to Hughson, along with two other officers from the DA’s office, to talk to the blogger in the back of the room on an allegation of a phone tip called into the DA’s office. See video here

Also of note was agent Brodie of the California Department of Corrections and rehabilitation, who had spent at least the last six months in court every day just sitting back behind the district attorney and not even dressed in proper court attire. It also appeared that he felt the need to keep close observations on the gallery while court is in session and what some people would call “mad dogging” the gallery.

In addition, to the best of my recollection, agent Brody testified that there was no polygraph done on Robert Woody and there were no recordings of transportations of Robert Woody from Tuolumne County when he was involved in those transports. Those statements turned out to be not true, just as the district attorney’s office representation that there was no polygraph given to Robert Woody even though it was done at their office in 2014.

Both the polygraph and recordings of the transportations were finally admitted to by the District Attorney’s Office

Here are the overt acts listed by Mme. district attorney in her rebuttal argument; keep in mind she was talking so fast I was unable to keep up with everything she said:

  1. Using private investigators to investigate the Korey Kauffman case which showed a consciousness of guilt. These investigators were hired after the search warrants were served on the property. The DA stated the use of private investigators shows sinister motives and a connection to the Atwals.
  2. Frank Carson was obsessed with locks, was adamant about getting locks replaced that were cut off after the search warrant, somehow wanting to lock up his property showed a consciousness of guilt of some sort.
  3. She also commented that Robert Woody Senior and Robert Woody Junior were not part of the Mike Cooley clan and all the other criminal players listed in the defense argument.
  4. Korey Kauffman went to steal the metal at Frank Carson’s property, even though personally I have seen no proof of that in the entire time I’ve been sitting in court.
  5. That Patrick Hampton’s and Ronald Cooper’s testimonies show solicitation and there is no indication she said that they actually knew each other so they were independent corroborating statements.
  6. Ricky Cooley said he saw three or four Hindus wandering around the property at some point prior to Korey Kauffman going on missing so they were using armed guards.
  7. The statements by Kimberly Stout and John Paden as to the threats that were made to Kory Kaufman were done at the behest of Frank Carson. Also, note that as John Paden had contacted investigators said they had put his statements wrong in the Ramey warrant.
  8. She also stated that the Atwals can steal their own property as in the truck, if they reported it stolen.
  9. The District Attorney’s Office claims that the lawsuits filed by the Atwals against law enforcement shows an attempt to obstruct justice. Personal experience shows that lawsuits or complaints have never obstructed justice.
  10. She stated that Frank Carson had filed some briefs and other clients cases in an effort to gain information on wiretaps that may be done on his phones.
  11. Michael Cooley said that he was told to keep his mouth shut and that was taken as a threat.
  12. As far as Walter Wells, Edward Quintanar, and Scott McFarlane are concerned they were involved as to advising others on how to counter surveillance and look for GPS devices on their cars.
  13. She also stated that Walter Wells cell phone hit on the same towers and sectors as Korey Kauffman’s phone after he disappeared. But there was a lot of testimony by Jim Cook that was disputed and outright proven to be false based on the information provided by the investigators.
  14. He stated that Robert Woody was told to flee the state and given $900 to go to Washington to visit his kids. She did mention that was a regular thing with Woody as the kids needed help and he would normally go to Washington.
  15. In addition, dental work for Robert Woody was paid for by the Atwals.
  16. She said there were jail phone calls that were made confirming that the Atwals will help Robert Woody with representation and bill.
  17. In the last overt act, was the actual movement of the body to Mariposa County where Robert Woody knew exactly where the body was when he was taken up there by investigators. The problem is that’s not what he testified to.

    In addition she said the amendment that Frank Carson made to the form 700 was done much too late, even though there is no time frame in the statute, Thus the perjury charge should be upheld.

These are the list of the overt acts as represented by Marlisa Ferreira and I will be listing some other information in the next few days as we go towards the judge’s ruling on April 10.

Also of note, my personal opinion is that the rebuttal given by Mme. DA was poorly thought out and was just a repeat of their original theories at the beginning of this hearing and not based on anything shown in the evidence. In addition, she used a PowerPoint presentation even though the judge has expressed her dislike for those presentations in the past.




BY Marty Carlson


California Gov. Moonbeam and all the idiot leaders in the legislature are proposing a $52 billion plan to fix California roads.

Anybody want to guess how it’s going to be paid for?

The Democratic leaders said Wednesday they would pay for with big increases in the gas tax, higher car registration fees, and a $100 charge on emission free vehicles.

Already higher than any other state gas prices would increase another $0.12 a gallon, which is a 43% increase. It also includes a sliding fee on vehicles, with owners of cheaper vehicles paying less.

A constitutional amendment would require that the money be spent only on transportation projects. The money will mostly go to fixing existing roads and bridges. It would also require support from two thirds of lawmakers in the assembly and Senate because it raises taxes.

Dawg’s note:

haven’t we all heard this before, including Gray Davis which I Arnold Schwarzenegger elected, and then he tried to do the same thing. They continue to spend on whorish projects like high-speed rail, the do not want to put money into the infrastructure like roads and dams.

We continually get increases in gas prices, registration fees, but they like to talk that they are there for the working man and the poor. They are out to control and get more money for as they please.

Keep in mind here there is a massive amount of money that is been collected already for the road infrastructure, there is major taxes on gasoline now, and every trucking outfit from out-of-state, these massive fees to just direct drive on our roads to help pay for repairs which is getting done. There is currently billions of dollars collected for this particular purpose but not being used and most definitely is being diverted.

Are we going to continue to let them do this? You tell me




by Marty Carlson


L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell

According to the Los Angeles media, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has been blocked by the courts, at least temporarily, of revealing 300 deputies who have history of misconduct.

The issues range from domestic violence, to theft, bribery, and brutality. This could also damage one’s credibility if they testify in court.

LA County Sheriff Jim McDonnell wants to send the names to the District Attorney’s Office, who can add them to an internal database that tracks problem officers. This can be critical to many defendants and that information they need to be disclosed in criminal trials.

Sheriff’s Department union argues that the disclosure would violate laws protecting officer personnel files, and draw unfair scrutiny on deputies as mistakes might’ve happened long ago.

Last week an appeals court sided with the union; temporarily blocking the Sheriff’s Department from sending names.

Other law enforcement agencies throughout the state are closely watching the results of these court rulings to decide to adopt the same practice.

It was also noted that many departments already sent this information to their local District Attorney’s Office. Cities like San Francisco and Sacramento regularly send prosecutors the names of those officers. In other areas like San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, it has been done for over a decade.

That approach has recently earned praise from the state Supreme Court and gained new attention of increasing demands for police accountability nationwide.

There is a fundamental issue to the criminal justice system and the prosecutor’s obligation to hand over exculpatory evidence that could help the defense. That includes information that could undermine an officer’s credibility.

In the landmark 1963 US Supreme Court ruling in Brady vs Maryland, prosecutors must turn over exculpatory evidences to defendants. Failing to disclose such evidences can result in faulty convictions.

California law has some of the strictest protections on law enforcement officers’ records in the country. Discipline hearings, personnel files and even the names of officers accused in eternal affairs investigations are confidential. Special court orders to get even basic information from an officers personnel file is very difficult.

The issue is whether it’s up to police departments tipoff to prosecutors about officers who have a history of misconduct, or whether prosecutors are supposed to find out about the problem officers on their own.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office does not have access to police discipline files; they learn about potential misconduct from law enforcement agencies when they present criminal cases in which officers are suspects and from news articles.

A lawyer for the deputy’s union contends that the District Attorney’s Office would refuse to accept the names of deputies with disciplinary histories.

She noted a declaration filed in court this month where a prosecutor in charge of handling police misconduct stated his office has been actively declining to accept information from a police officer personnel file. And that is only if the information is offered by law enforcement agency without the express permission of the involved officer.

But Los Angeles assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers said he believes that Sheriff’s Department has a clear constitutional obligation to disclose to the District Attorney’s Office the names of deputies with potential credibility issues. They claim it is part of the Sheriff’s commitment of transparency.

In 2015, the state Supreme Court praised San Francisco police for notifying local prosecutors about officers who had problematic histories. And soon afterwards, the Atty. Gen.’s office advised the California Highway Patrol that doing so was legal.

In October, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department sent letters to about 300 deputies warning them that their personnel files contain evidence of moral turpitude. The letter said such acts could include accepting bribes or gifts or misappropriating properties, tampering with evidence, lying, obstructing investigations, falsifying records, using unreasonable force, discriminatory harassment, and family violence. They also stated that some of the offenses do not apply to any current deputies in the department.

They stated the letters would include only the deputies found guilty of wrongdoing by internal investigations, and the agency would send just the deputies names, not their entire personnel file.

The officer’s names are not intended to become public, but their presence on a list kept by prosecutors means deputies could be one step closer to have the disciplinary files scrutinized by a judge. Which could also mean their police work could be called into question during court.

It was also noted about 15 management – level employees up to the rank of Lieut. also received warning notices. The union has filed unfair labor practices complaint on behalf of its members according to the association’s president.

In my opinion police officers should be held to a higher standard and maybe this would help keep them from doing some of the activities that they feel exempt from; due to their status. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And there’s been some contact with me personally, in this particular area, in regards to some of these activities.