As you read and heard in a report yesterday, in the long ruling that judge Zuniga gave on the 1385 hearing, it appeared she was spending a lot of time justifying her rulings in the preliminary hearing.

She gave a long dissertation regarding the witnesses the credibility and the evidence given during 18 months of testimony. She also talked about problems that resulted in the length of the hearing.

She also went into extensive critique of the inability and the problems with the District Attorney’s Office providing discovery in this case. This is not unique to this area, as I am continually hearing from other attorneys about discovery issues for a long time in this county.

Judge Zuniga stated that she has the distinction of being the only judge to release capital case defendants on an OR release, she also noted that was not a distinction she was proud to have.

She went into a long narrative about why that needed to be done, and basically was because new discovery had been brought in by the District Attorney’s Office after everybody had rested their case, one piece of that evidence was an interview of Robert Woody, in fact the first interview of Robert Woody after he was arrested 2014.


She noted that this was a case that the District Attorney’s Office, and I quote, “let get away from themselves because they filed charges to soon.” She also noted “they bumbled their way through discovery.”

She stated that the District Attorney’s Office right-hand did not know what the left hand was doing, as there was constant confusion between investigators from different agencies. She also noted an argument that attorney Hans had made to at the end of the preliminary hearing discussing that the infrastructure at the district attorney’s office was not up to the job to comply with the law.

Judge Zuniga never made mention from the April 10, 2017 ruling, of her telling the District Attorney’s Office that “she saved their case for them.” She never made mention that she was constantly advising the district attorney the proper methods of posing questions and building foundations to questions with the witness.

She noted that all attorneys were responsible in different ways for the length of the hearing but did put a strong share of the responsibility on the District Attorney’s Office in her insistent re-cross examinations as if she could never let it go.

Yesterday, September 26, 2017 is when she ruled against the defense on their motion for her to dismiss the charges.

Another note of importance, Modesto bee reporter, Rosalio Rahumada, was in court for this entire hearing and her ruling, and as of yet no article in the Modesto be regarding this matter.

In the past, I have been in contact with the Modesto bee and questioned their lack of coverage of the case that they declared was the third most important story of 2015. I have been told there has been extensive coverage by the bee on this case. I personally do not feel that is the case.


If anybody wishes to contact the Modesto bee namely Rosalio Rahumada here is his email address. rahumada@modbee.com



by Marty Carlson


This last week I saw a Facebook live video talking about a dog, Rhino, that had been confiscated and taken to Stanislaus County animal control shelter on Cornucopia way. The owner of the dog had been arrested, for a minor warrant, and instead of releasing the dog to a friend that was coming to get Rhino, the police department chose to call animal control and put the dog in doggy jail.

The owner, who is low income, was not able to pay the more than $600 in fees that was amassed while she was taking care of her business. A friend of hers, the one that was coming to pick up the dog originally, was trying to get the dog released from the animal shelter and was running into a stiff brick wall of attitude by some employees there. They were not willing to be too cooperative but were willing to tell him that if the dog is not picked up and paid for by the 5 PM the following day the dog would be going and I quote “nighty night.” They had also claimed that the dog was being held because of a bite was not true they do not seem to be having accurate records there, and shortly thereafter discovered themselves that was not true themselves.

I guess the term “nighty night” must be a term specific to Stanislaus County animal services agency, as far is euthanizing dogs I have not heard that term before. It seems that there’s a negative type of demeanor that’s developed in the animal services agency that does not seem to consider proper customer service. And using that type of terminology to animal lovers is one of the most derogatory terms that you could use.

A plea was put out over Facebook to help this lady that is highly dependent on her dog, and many wonderful people responded with donations to keep the dog from being euthanized.

This reminded me of a personal experience that I had several years ago was stances County animal control services. I had relatives visiting from out of state and had brought their boxer with them, and the neighbor had called animal control stating the dog had bit her grandson. I personally observed the dog around her grandson and he was not bitten, was just scared by a big dog. There were no bite marks on the young man, but the dog was taken and held in the Stanislaus County animal control services facility for quarantine period, which by law could have been done right here at my house. They chose not to do that, forcing a return visit by my relatives and retrieve their dog, after the quarantine period.

I tried explaining to the animal control officer, who had a very poor demeanor with everybody involved, and was not willing to listen. After great expense of the incarceration was paid, the dog came out about 20 pounds lighter and full of fleas. The dog had a totally different demeanor coming out also. This occurred just months after this agency had moved to the new facility on cornucopia way. The dog was a very loving dog but was different after that experience.

About a year ago, an inmate from the honor farm, was working at the agency and took pictures from an area of the agency where they euthanize the dogs. There were dead dogs piled on the floor on top of each other and pictures were taken. See article here

The director, Ann Patton, was very quick to defend what they do, and also very quick to criticize the inmate in an effort to deflect their responsibilities. See article here

In addition, some time just prior to the pictures being taken by the inmate, there was a lady in Modesto who wrote a letter to the editor, stating her dog had gone missing, and had been missing for several weeks. She was never notified by animal control services that her dog was at their facility. She had originally adopted the dog from that facility, and when you do they make you pay for a chip that they insert for tracking purposes, that chip is not optional and youre required to pay. They did not check that chip in the dog or ownerships and had placed the dog up for adoption again. The lady that had originally adopted that dog, saw her dog on the animal control services website where it was up for adoption and contacted them.

She was told by Stanislaus County animal services that they are not obligated to look for ownership of an animal that comes into the facility, they were also demanding that she pay for long-term care of the dog for them having the dog for several weeks. She was put in a position that she had to pay a quite a bit of money if she wanted to get her dog back. Then try to settle the claim with the county later.

Again, the director at the time, Ann Patton, was quoted in the newspaper is saying that they are not obligated nor required to check ownership by chip even though they require people that adopt the dogs to pay for the chip for identification purposes. This director has been quoted also in the past stating that she doesn’t like animals and apparently, she has no big concern about the animals nor the people that own these animals and how much they mean to each other.

In that last example shows the government’s willingness to gather revenue over doing what I personally would consider the right thing. It’s an integrity issue.

Now let me hear what you think



If you are looking for updates on The Frank Carson Case, or my Linda (copsucker) Taylor series, or AJ Pontillo series Please go to the category drop down menu to the right on a computer or at the bottom on a hand held device and click on the right category for your choice.

I have changed the options on the searches as you can also access older dates easier, Or you can just enter the name of the person you are looking for in the search box.

Just for information I have changed the commenting and you need to log in with Facebook or Twitter. Feel free to comment but if it gets out of hand I will delete them but I encourage people to speak their mind as I do.

Feel free to contact me by email : DawgonnitDawgsblog@gmail.com

Thank you for coming to my site.







Wow, this girl has a great plan!  Love the last thing she would do the best.

This was written by a 21-yr. old female who gets it.  It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in!  These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was a letter to the editor, in the “Waco Tribune Herald”, Waco, TX.


Put me in charge of food stamps no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away.  If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid.  Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine.  If you want to use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing Ever live in a military barracks?  You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.  Your “home” will be subject to inspections any time and possessions will be inventoried.  If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job.  It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.  We will sell your 22-inch rims and low-profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary.  If you want our money, accept our rules.  Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self-esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices.  The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

I love this one…

AND while you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!  Yes, that is correct.  For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.  You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check.  If you want to vote, then get a job.

Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON…

Isn’t it weird that in AMERICA our flag and our culture offend so many people…..
but our benefits don’t?



Purveyor of injustice cowboy the juice state farm jake jacobson with a big moustache to mercifully cover up his face, leather chaps and boots to shed the BS he emanates (a sweet scent emanating from the blossoms) continually from his chops. In this he emanates the smell of the stuff real cowboys scrape off their boots after running a heard of bulls. Baby Huey Evers could not fit in the picture but is right there to the left of cowboy Jacobson ready to catch him when he falls. Fingerfelt is behind Juice and Piltdown Man brody is over juice’s right shoulder. Kirk Bunch is on the left with SUN on his shirt and fadager is on his left with MON on her shirt. The one with the gaping mouth saying “Oh crap. Frank Carson beat me in another one”!!! Where’s Marlissa??? Who knows. Objection, that’s speculation! :0)

Judge Blocks California’s High-Capacity Magazine Ban

A federal judge is blocking a California law set to go into effect Saturday that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines.

San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said in ruling Thursday that the law banning possession of magazines containing more than 10 bullets would have made criminals of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who now own the magazines.

He issued a preliminary injunction backing the legal challenge by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is defending the state law, did not immediately comment.

The judge says the law approved by voters in November takes away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.