MURDER UNDER COVER OF THE LAW

MURDER UNDER COVER OF THE LAW

BY WILLIAM THOMAS JENSEN (TOM)
8-11-2020

I lost a dear friend today.

I found out about Frank Carson’s passing barely an hour ago.

I am going to “Go Off” now on some of the people that I feel are responsible,

For what I consider to be:

Murder under cover of the law.

First of all,

I want to express my sincerest sympathy to Frank Carson’s family in this time of grief and loss.

I love all of you dearly, and will try to assist you in any way that you need.

Frank was very blessed to have such a great and loving family to call his own.

It is my hope that you can find the strength to carry on with life, and find God’s peace.

Frank will be in our hearts and minds until that day when we will all be together in the house of our Lord.

The power of a District Attorney is enormous.

Along with that power is the responsibility that this power never be abused.

This case was authorized to move forward by Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager

Despite the complete lack of evidence that would support the charges.

Murder under cover of the law.

The prosecution had the ever changing testimony of Robert Woody,

Who had confessed to the killing of Korey Kauffman.

The prosecution knew that his tape recorded confession was false,

Because Robert Woody had passed a polygraph examination.

He denied any knowledge or involvement in the killing of Korey Kauffman.

Birgit Fladager hid this from Robert Woody’s attorney Bruce Perry.

Robert Woody was merely trying to impress a young lady named Miranda Dykes,

Who was wearing a body wire, by telling her that he had killed Korey Kauffman.

Murder under cover of the law.

Over the next two years,

The District Attorney coerced Robert Woody into implicating Frank Carson,

And the other charged defendants in the killing of Korey Kauffman.

Birgit Fladager hated Frank Carson.

She seldom could beat him in court.

He had the audacity to run against Birgit Fladager for DA.

Frank successfully defended Carmen Sabatino,

Frank Drummond,

A.J. Pontillo,

And others in blockbuster trials.

Murder under cover of the law.

All of these trials were malicious and unjustified. I sat through and reported on most of them.

What I learned during those trials,

Exposed Birgit Fladager as being willing to use her awesome power to destroy lives,

And political careers by malicious and unjustified prosecution.

Frank Carson lost his life because of her actions.

Murder under cover of the law.

He spent around 18 months in Modesto’s rotting downtown jail.

Frank was a diabetic and was supposed to receive his diabetic medications with his morning meal.

They gave him medication at 2:00AM every morning without his meal.

Frank had high blood pressure.

They did not adequately control his blood pressure, resulting in kidney failure,

And eventually the need for dialysis.

We all felt that they were trying to kill Frank Carson.

Murder under cover of the law.

A.J. Pontillo lost his wife and unborn child to the stress that Birgit Fladager put him through.

She didn’t care. She has absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Murder under cover of the law.

Now I am going to “Go Off” on some of the witnesses and investigators that helped Birgit Fladager murder Frank Carson under cover of the law.

I blame Robert Woody for being stupid enough to admit to a murder that he did not commit.

I blame Robert Woody for being willing to give false testimony implicating Frank Carson,

And the other defendants in order to save his own worthless life.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame DA Investigator Kirk Bunch for his proven lies that he said on the stand.

Kirk Bunch would call these lies “Misstatements” when he was caught, but we all knew them to be lies.

Kirk Bunch hated Frank Carson, and this was his chance to take Frank down.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame DA Investigator Steve Jacobson for all the “Coaching” that he gave Robert Woody,

While transporting him to Modesto from the Tuolumne County Jail, where he was being held.

I blame Steve Jacobson for his activities with the Woody’s.

If you read Frank Carson lawsuit,

READ PAGE 15 LINE 10 IN DOCUMENT BELOW:

There is an allegation Jacobson had been involved with a Beverly Woody visit at the jail.

The visit where Beverly had held up a note to the window ,

Telling Robert Woody what to say to get his deal.

Remember Beverly Woody could not read or write.

So someone had written that note.

I hope that this will come out in the law suits that will hopefully be tried.

I believe that he should be held accountable for what he did during the Frank Carson trial.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame many of the low life witnesses during the trial that were willing to lie on the stand,

All in order to make their own legal cases disappear.

There are murderers walking around today because of the lies that the prosecution allowed them to say on the stand.

I believe that the prosecution was guilty of suborning perjury during the Frank Carson trial.

I believe that this happened multiple times during the trial.

I believe that the prosecution used the actual murderer/murderers to testify against Frank Carson and the other defendants in the trial.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame the “Self-Proclaimed Cell Phone Expert” Jim Cook,

Jim Cook

Who was caught manipulating the cell phone data to falsely implicate the defendants in this case.

He should never be allowed to be used as an “Expert Witness” again.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame Chief Prosecuting DA Marlisa Ferreira for her entire conduct during the Frank Carson trial.

What she did was pure evil in my opinion.

I believe that she must have known that Frank and the other defendants were innocent,

But was willing to do anything to win her case.

She constantly was allowed to feed answers to her witnesses on the stand by asking leading questions.

Murder under cover of the law.

I blame Judge Barbara Zuniga for being obviously biased during the trial.

JUDGE ZUNIGAJUDGE ZUNIGA

Some of her rulings defied all logic. Judge Zuniga showed no control over her courtroom.

She promised that sanctions were going to be made against Marlisa Ferreira.

She never followed through on these sanctions.

Judge Zuniga should never have held the defendants over for trial in the first place.

The snail’s pace of the preliminary hearing,

Had forced Frank Carson to languish in jail for a year and a half unnecessarily.

Murder under cover of the law.

I think that I am done for now. I know that I will come up with some more things to write about.

I will continue my rant after some reflection.

May God bless you Frank Carson.

I will forever be a better man for having the privilege of being able to call you my friend.

May we meet again in eternity.

Sincerely; William Thomas Jensen (Tom)


FRANK CARSON CASE RUMORS

 

FRANK CARSON CASE RUMORS AND ODDS AND ENDS

RETRIEMENT NOT FOR KIRK BUNCH

FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE P.O.S.T. COMMISION PAGE

 


Kirk Bunch
Law Enforcement Consultant I
Training Program Services Bureau

 

FRANK CARSON CASE RUMORS AND ODDS AND ENDS

Kirk comes to us from the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office (SCDA) where he worked as a Senior Criminal Investigator, 2001-2020. Prior to SCDA, Kirk worked at the Pittsburg Police Department (PPD), 1987-2001, holding various positions in Patrol and Detectives, and finished as a Detective/Sergeant. Kirk is assigned as a Law Enforcement Consultant I in the Training Program Services (TPS) Bureau.

CONGRATULATIONS ON THE NEW JOB MR. BUNCH I WISH YOU WELL.

______________________________________________________

 

THERE IS ALSO AN UNCONFIRMED RUMOR THAT BIRGIT FLADAGER IS BEING PRESSURED TO STEP DOWN

AND UNCONFIRMED RUMOR DAVE HARRIS IS RETIRING.

UNKNOWN WHO THAT WILL LEAVE IN CHARGE.


THE PEOPLE VS SCOTT PETERSON

THE PEOPLE VS SCOTT PETERSON

SCOTT PETERSON SCHEDULED FOR APPEAL ARGUMENTS TOMORROW

Appellate Courts Case Information


Supreme Court

Case Summary

Docket

Briefs

Disposition

Parties and Attorneys

Lower Court

Case Summary CASE #5 SCHEDULED FOR TOMMORROW
THE PEOPLE VS SCOTT PETERSON SUPREME COURT APPEAL

Upcoming Oral Argument Webcasts

Name

Date

   

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2020-06-02

June 02, 2020 – 09:00 AM

Case Information

 

Note: Links for live webcasts will appear for the scheduled event approximately 30 minutes before start.

Supreme Court Case:

S132449

Court of Appeal Case(s):

No Data Found

Trial Court Case:

SC55500

Case Caption:

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT LEE)

Case Category:

Automatic Appeal

Start Date:

03/16/2005

Case Status:

scheduled for argument

Issues:

Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Case Citation:

none

NOTE: The statement of the issues is intended simply to inform the public and the press of the general subject matter of the case. The description set out above does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.

Cross Referenced Cases:

S230782

PETERSON (SCOTT) ON H.C.

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

REMEMBER THIS WAS BIRGIT FLADAGERS CLAIM TO FAME

Note: Links for live webcasts will appear for the scheduled event approximately 30 minutes before start.


BIRGIT FLADAGER DOES NOT FILE CHARGES AGAINST OFFICER ROSS BAYS (VIDEO)

PREVIOUS ARTICLE HERE:

HERE IS THE VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING:

HERE IS THE PRESS RELEASE FROM STANISLAUS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BIRGIT FLADAGER ON THEIR REFUSAL TO FILE CHARGES:

DAWGS SAYS: OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND ALL THE INFORMATION LIKE THIS AVAILABLE, STANISLAUS COUNTY VOTERS STILL RE-ELECTED HER. SHE HAS ALSO SAID THEY PROSECUTE INNOCENT PEOPLE TO GIVE THEIR JUNIOR ATTORNEYS TRIAL EXPERIENCE.

CONGRATULATIONS YOU ARE GETTING WHAT YOU ASKED FOR! DO YOU FEEL SAFER NOW?

REPLAY OF BIRGIT FLADAGER INSISTANCE PROSECUTORS PUT INNOCENT DEFENDANTS ON TRIAL FOR THE TRIAL EXPERIENCE…….

This is a short clip of the Dist. Atty.’s candidate forum in Patterson in May 2018, the question involved ethics as a prosecutor and the response by Brigit Fladager was that she wants her younger prosecutors to go ahead and prosecute a case even though the defendant may be factually innocent. The conversation was concerning around senior prosecutors with experience advising younger ones to not prosecute certain cases, and Brigit Fladager stated that she does not want her senior and more experienced people in her office telling or advising younger prosecutors not to prosecute so they can get trial experience.

So, she’s endorsing the fact that innocent people may be put on trial so their younger attorneys can get experience, not based on the facts with the merits of the case.

It’s also noted the inflamed responses of the other candidates including John Mayne who stated that when his policy was enacted he was at the meeting asked specific questions in regard to the policy, and Brigit Fladager was not present at that meeting to clarify.

Here is the video decide for yourself:

DAWG SAYS: I AM AMAZED THE VOTERS CHOSE TO RE ELECT MS. FLADAGER AFTER SEEING WHAT SHE IS MADE OF, AND LOOK WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW…….

REPLAY: BIRGIT FLADAGER INSISTS PROSECUTORS PUT INNOCENT DEFENDANTS ON TRIAL FOR THE EXPERIENCE

REPLAY FROM OCTOBER 2018 DEBATE IN PATTERSON

NOT THE ENTIRE DEBATE JUST ONE SNIPPET

This is a short clip of the Dist. Atty.’s candidate forum in Patterson recently, the question involved ethics as a prosecutor and the response by Brigit Fladager was that she wants her younger prosecutors to go ahead and prosecute a case even though the defendant may be factually innocent. The conversation was concerning around senior prosecutors with experience advising younger ones to not prosecute certain cases, and Brigit Fladager stated that she does not want her senior and more experienced people in her office telling or advising younger prosecutors not to prosecute so they can get trial experience.

So, she’s endorsing the fact that innocent people may be put on trial so their younger attorneys can get experience, not based on the facts with the merits of the case.

It’s also noted the inflamed responses of the other candidates including John Mayne who stated that when his policy was enacted he was at the meeting asked specific questions in regard to the policy, and Brigit Fladager was not present at that meeting to clarify.

Here is the video decide for yourself:

FRANK CARSON UPDATE…….

COURT RESUMES TOMORROW

Just a quick note after a week off from the Frank Carson et al. trial.

Court resumes tomorrow at 1:30 PM to finish the own recognizance revocation motion filed by the District Attorney’s Office.

So there be no jury tomorrow but there will be a podcast tomorrow night with the results and hopefully the judge’s ruling on this motion.

This is the second day of this motion, and the District Attorney’s Office is claiming that Frank Carson is intimidating witnesses including Kirk Bunch who said he was standing in the hallway with Frank Carson and felt intimidated.

The District Attorney’s Office is also trying to put this blogger in the middle of this motion on the previous day of testimony by Kirk Bunch. Investigator Bunch had stated that I had made a comment in regard to Frank Carson’s comment to the apparently thin-skinned investigators in the courtroom as he was leaving one day when he was sick. During his previous testimony, Kirk bunch stated that I had made a comment that was inappropriate what Frank Carson had said.

Not knowing exactly what I had said that day, it is not relevant to the issue at hand as to the revocation of their own recognizance. It is more of a feeble effort by the District Attorney’s Office to try to intimidate anybody in the area that they feel may not be kissing their backside. Again, that testimony is irrelevant as to the issue at hand and just shows the tactics that this District Attorney’s Office is willing to use in their win at all cost attitudes.

Kirk Bunch also noted that Frank Carson had set in the gallery while he was testifying in the Aguilar case, again he said he felt intimidated because he was being looked at while he was testifying. He gave some other testimony regarding instances where he said he felt intimidated by Frank Carson.

Personally, I feel if we have our law enforcement officers in this county that are intimidated by a 65-year-old man standing in a hallway or sitting in a gallery of a court case, which any citizen can do, I believe that goes to the lack of effectiveness that they can do their job properly.

I must admit that this appears to be a direct result of the lack of integrity and leadership that sits at the top of the District Attorney’s Office. Birgit Fladager has already admitted on the record, and on video that has been played on Dawgs Blog, stating that she wants her junior Deputy district Attorney personnel prosecuting innocent people to gain trial experience. See video HERE . This is the attitude that is filtered down from the top of this District Attorney’s Office and it does not appear that anyone is willing to step up to try to get control of this abhorrent behavior.

Where are you Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors?

The citizens of Stanislaus County to have a say in the future of this District Attorney’s Office. In November there is a runoff between Birgit Fladager and John Mayne. Please educate yourself to make a proper vote in the election.

DONATIONS

HELP DAWGS BLOG

$5.00

BIRGIT FLADAGER INSISTS PROSECUTORS PUT INNOCENT DEFENDANTS ON TRIAL FOR THE EXPERIENCE…….

This is a short clip of the Dist. Atty.’s candidate forum in Patterson recently, the question involved ethics as a prosecutor and the response by Brigit Fladager was that she wants her younger prosecutors to go ahead and prosecute a case even though the defendant may be factually innocent. The conversation was concerning around senior prosecutors with experience advising younger ones to not prosecute certain cases, and Brigit Fladager stated that she does not want her senior and more experienced people in her office telling or advising younger prosecutors not to prosecute so they can get trial experience.

So, she’s endorsing the fact that innocent people may be put on trial so their younger attorneys can get experience, not based on the facts with the merits of the case.

It’s also noted the inflamed responses of the other candidates including John Mayne who stated that when his policy was enacted he was at the meeting asked specific questions in regard to the policy, and Brigit Fladager was not present at that meeting to clarify.

Here is the video decide for yourself:

DONATIONS

HELP DAWGS BLOG

$5.00

BIRGIT FLADAGER INSISTS PROSECUTERS PUT INNOCENT DEFENDANTS ON TRIAL FOR THE EXPERIENCE…….

This is a short clip of the Dist. Atty.’s candidate forum in Patterson recently, the question involved ethics as a prosecutor and the response by Brigit Fladager was that she wants her younger prosecutors to go ahead and prosecute a case even though the defendant may be factually innocent. The conversation was concerning around senior prosecutors with experience advising younger ones to not prosecute certain cases, and Brigit Fladager stated that she does not want her senior and more experienced people in her office telling or advising younger prosecutors not to prosecute so they can get trial experience.

So, she’s endorsing the fact that innocent people may be put on trial so their younger attorneys can get experience, not based on the facts with the merits of the case.

It’s also noted the inflamed responses of the other candidates including John Mayne who stated that when his policy was enacted he was at the meeting asked specific questions in regard to the policy, and Brigit Fladager was not present at that meeting to clarify.

Here is the video decide for yourself:

 

DONATIONS

HELP DAWGS BLOG

$5.00


WAZZUP DAWG? REQUESTS FOR INTERVIEWS WITH D.A. CANDIDATES HAS BEEN SENT OUT……..

ONE CANDIDATE HAS ALREADY SCHEDULED A TIME

12-27-2017

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.

UPDATE ON FRANK CARSON AND AJ PONTILLO ISSUES…….

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

WHY IS IT THAT AJ STILL HAS TO DEAL WITH THE COURTS TO HAVE PROPERTY RETURNED????

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.


WAZZUP DAWG?: WHATS NEW IN THE DISTRICT ATTY’S OFFICE IN STANISLAUS?

 

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.