Just to keep my readers informed Dawgs Blog has sent out requests for interviews with the candidates for Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office.

I will basically be using a generic question list for all three, as I am trying to get consistency in all the interviews and issues, but that is subject to change as the interview evolves.

The requests were just sent out, but I have received one response already, and Patrick Kolasinski, has already scheduled an interview this week. All interviews will be recorded and posted on my site in its entirety.

Feel free to send any questions you may want asked.

Dawgs Blog will make an endorsement after these interviews. Stay tuned.



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.



Birgit Fladager


Recent events in the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office has led to some interesting revelations occurring in our District Attorney’s Office.

The Stanislaus District Attorney’s Office has had a massive turnover in the last six months to a year where experienced prosecutors have moved on to other areas or private practice. Information I received this week is that they have hired about 8 to 10 new attorneys with only one of them having prior trial experience, most are very young probably right out of law school. Apparently, they like to teach them young on how to do things the way they like them done, and as we have seen in the Frank Carson et al. case it is not all done by the book.

Also, this week there has been an email sent out by Birgit Fladager states their requirements regarding the marijuana possession law that was recently passed by the voters.

This email stated that all marijuana convictions in Stanislaus County, even if it’s an infraction conviction, will require the defendant to submit to a DNA test to be kept in a database. My understanding that this is something for Stanislaus County only and not in the laws passed by the voters of the state.

It appears this administration of the District Attorney’s Office here in Stanislaus County wants to continue maintaining a vice grip on the community instead of just administering justice, along with this they have a great love for wiretaps that do not lead to convictions, and body wires that listen in on attorney client conversations constantly.

Trust me I am not anti-law enforcement but I strongly endorse the fact that law enforcement needs to do their job in a proper manner that works with the people not against the community it serves.

Also, keep in mind in recent years the government has required that all newborn babies are tested for a DNA profile and it is stored in a database for future reference.

The affordable care act, also known as Obama care, has also put in provisions of that act that waves our HIPPA rights that we have been afforded over the years as a protection of privacy and now no longer exists. I have confirmed through sources that medical billing offices are receiving demographic information in regards to patients, patient’s spouses, parents, relatives, or anyone else attached or responsible for that patient. Not to mention what is done to insurance premiums.

This demographic is not general information for particular diseases or age groups etc. but contains specific information like names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, addresses, and other specific information.

The things happening here in Stanislaus County, California, and in our country, can only happen if we stand still and let them happen. We can make change with people working together instead of against each other all the time, there’s strength in numbers and solidarity.

Stanislaus County DA headed for more court time…….

Oh what a tangled web we weave

by Marty Carlson

Brigit Fladager, Stanislaus County district attorney, is once again under fire by a former employee who claims that she has ignored or even rewarded criminal behavior in her office.

The former employee by the name of Douglas Maner who was once a Fladager supporter is filed a lawsuit against Stanislaus County’s former employer.

The former employee claims that the DA had overlooked a DUI recent conviction for DUI by Douglas Raynaud when she promoted him.

In addition, there were other attorneys convicted of hit and run while driving drunk and clerks who now prefer form their duties properly resulting in the dismissal of cases.

Also included in the complaint are sexual harassment claims in the former deputy chief who ridiculed colleagues in emails.

Fladager would not return phone calls and released a statement that she cannot comment on pending litigation. Her attorneys calling the suit frivolous stated that he is waiting for a federal judge who is looking at the case and requested that he throw it out.

The former employee left the office in 2013 and currently works as a defense attorney. His lawsuit claims violations of constitutional rights and protecting political speech and associations.

Maner a former senior prosecutor who enjoyed the choice assignments as in the high profile cases and appearing at parole hearings. He had supported judge Michael Cummins in the 2006 campaign and says he was not allowed to return to court rooms after Fladager had won the election, he says also during that time others had received preferential treatment for their support.

Maner says he received exceptional performance ratings until Fladager took control. He was and discipline many times, at many levels where he was finally forced to leave.

He contends that Fladager had reduced Raynauds suspension from the job following is 2011 DUI conviction from 45 days to 10. In addition Raynaud had not applied for the promotion the chief deputy while on informal probation ordered by the court, but the DA reopened the application process for a short period and chose Raynaud after he applied.

Fladager stated in a deposition that the public will never know about her prosecutors lawbreaking ways because it is confidential information.

Reports also state that prosecutors from the state Atty. Gen.’s office, not Fladagers, and handled DUI cases that occurred while he was there.

Maners attorney stated in court papers that some employees of the District Attorney’s Office were fearful of not supporting Fladager for fear of retaliation.

Fladager’s attorneys response to the papers state that the lawsuit is nothing but spend and speculation and should be thrown out. It also states that he was disciplined five times prior to her election, and another prosecutor who supported Cummins has never been disciplined.