JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND DNA EVIDENCE

JUSTICE IN AMERICA AND DNA EVIDENCE


This Scientist Helped Free the Innocent Using DNA. Now Biden Wants Him in the Cabinet.
Some experts hope Eric Lander, the president’s choice for new science adviser, will crack down on bad forensics in courtrooms.

In November 1988, at a secretive conference center in the woods in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, a select group of biologists, judges, philosophers and others gathered for three days to debate what was then a brand-new practice: the use of DNA in criminal cases.

Also in attendance were two Bronx criminal defense lawyers who knew very little about science. They were there in part because they were working on a murder case in which the prosecutors were planning to present this novel type of evidence—some blood that had been found on the defendant’s wristwatch, containing bands of DNA.

As the first day of the conference dragged into the late afternoon, records of the event show, many of the speakers were expressing great optimism about what was being called “DNA fingerprinting,” saying that it would allow juries for the first time in history to know to a 100 percent certainty whether an accused person is guilty. Then, a brash, brainy young geneticist named Eric Lander—who three decades later is President Biden’s pick to become the first-ever Cabinet-level science adviser to the president—got up to speak, discarding his prepared remarks and instead dissecting the flaws in others’ arguments.

This was the guy they needed to talk to, the two Bronx lawyers thought. During a coffee break, they pulled Lander aside, asking him if he could take a quick look at the X-ray films of the DNA from their case. “They dragged me into this side room; they locked the door,” Lander recalled years later. “I needed this like a hole in the head.”

Lander reluctantly agreed to help, holding the images up to a window.

He was stunned by what he saw: The DNA did not line up at all. Was a court of law really going to allow this “schmutz,” as he called it, to be presented to a jury?



JUSTICE IN AMERICA $17 MIL STOLEN NO VICTIMS RESTITUTION

JUSTICE IN AMERICA $17 MIL STOLEN NO VICTIMS RESTITUTION

In 4 years, Graham case has paid lawyers, trustees.

But not crime victims.

A trustee charged with recovering money for crime victims of former Las Vegas Attorney Robert Graham has spent more than four years looking for assets and filed about 500 court documents, So far, victims have not seen a dime.

Nearly $1 million in assets has been identified, but the only people paid so far have been accountants and attorneys – roughly about $113,000, records and interviews show.

Barbara Macknin said she doesn’t expect the bankruptcy case against Robert Graham’s old firm to produce any money for his victims.

In 2016, a group of Graham’s victims filed an involuntary bankruptcy case against his defunct law firm to recover any money that was left. A year later, the judge in Graham’s case also ordered the largest restitution in Clark County in the past five years but victims have not seen any money from the criminal restitution or the bankruptcy case.

“The attorney fees keep piling up and being awarded by the court,” said Thane Parton, who lost nearly $500,000 to Graham’s theft. “There’s a lot of distrust of the system on the bankruptcy and there has been no communication.”

Graham was sentenced to 16 to 40 years in prison in 2017 for stealing about $17 million from dozens of clients to pay for his office and personal expenses.

DAWG SAYS: THIS IS BECOMING ALL TOO TYPICAL IN THESE TYPE CASES ANYMORE. THE VICTIMS ARE ALWAYS THE LAST TO RECEIVE COMPENASATION AND EVEN THAT IS RARE. IN FACT, THERE IS A PRACTICE BY GOVERNMENT TO REVIEVE COMPENSATION IN COSTS BEFORE THE VICTIMS DO.


MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED……

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED

TIMELINE OF CASE

A LONG READ BUT IMPORTANT TO SEE WHAT THE ISSUES ARE HERE AND HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS GONE ASKEW IN SOME AREAS

The Justice Department dropped its case against Michael Flynn — more than three years after the former national security adviser’s initial interview with federal prosecutors that ignited the federal case against him.

A bombshell dropped in the case on April 29 when internal documents from the FBI were unsealed revealing that top bureau officials discussed their motivations for interviewing Flynn in the White House in January 2017–and openly questioned if their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

President Trump has previously floated a “full pardon” of Flynn, who pleaded guilty as part of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe to making false statements to FBI agents during his Jan. 24, 2017, interview about his conversations with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after the Justice Department said in a court filing that they had lost the initial FBI 302 from that interview.

Here’s a look back at everything that’s happened in the case so far:

Jan. 24, 2017

Flynn, who at the time was national security adviser to Trump, was approached by a pair of FBI agents for an interview at the White House. They wanted to discuss his communications with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak regarding sanctions in December 2016, which unbeknownst to Flynn had been picked up in wiretapped discussions. This interview would later form the basis for a false-statement charge and guilty plea.

Feb. 13, 2017

Flynn resigned from his White House post. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about those same communications with Kislyak. Pence, after being briefed by Flynn, had said in television interviews that Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador.

May 17, 2017 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to take over the investigation of Russian meddling and possible collusion with Trump associates in the 2016 election.

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Dec. 1, 2017

As part of the Mueller investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements in his FBI interview regarding his talks with Kislyak. Flynn was charged with lying to federal investigators about whether he had talked to Kislyak about limiting the Russian government’s response to former President Barack Obama’s sanctions for election meddling.

His plea deal involved his full cooperation with investigators in the special counsel’s office.

According to the charging document, the false statements were that:

“On or about Dec. 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States…to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.”

“On or about Dec. 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russia Ambassador subsequently never described to FLYNN Russia’s response to his request.”

Flynn agreed to “cooperate fully, truthfully, completely and forthrightly” with the investigation, with sentencing delayed until those efforts “have been completed.”

Flynn was told he could be sentenced to federal prison for up to five years.


Flynn gave his guilty plea to Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but days later, Contreras recused himself from the case. Contreras is also a judge on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Feb. 1, 2018

Two months after Flynn initially pleaded guilty, Mueller and Flynn’s attorneys filed a “joint status report” to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan requesting more time.

“Due to the status of the special counsel’s investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time,” the filing from Mueller and Flynn attorneys Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony read. “The parties shall file a joint status report by no later than May, 2018, stating whether the matter should be scheduled for sentencing or whether a deadline should be set for filing another joint status report.”

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED TIMELINE OF EVENTS

April-May 2018 

A Republican-authored House Intelligence Committee report on the Russia probe was released. The eventually unredacted report said FBI agents did not believe that Flynn intentionally lied about talks with Russia’s ambassador.

“Director [James] Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception,” the report said. “They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.'”

Comey, though, disputed the claims, saying “someone misunderstood something I said. I didn’t believe that and didn’t say that.”

May 1, 2018

The special counsel and Flynn’s attorneys filed another joint status report, requesting yet another 90-day delay for Flynn’s sentencing.

June 29, 2018

The special counsel and Flynn’s attorneys filed yet another joint status report.

Sullivan demanded information about why both sides had repeatedly asked for Flynn’s sentencing to be delayed.

Aug. 21, 2018

Another joint status report was filed by Mueller and Flynn’s attorneys, signaling that the former national security adviser was continuing to cooperate with the special counsel.

In July, Flynn’s attorneys said their client was “eager” to wrap up and proceed to sentencing.

September 2018

The special counsel and attorneys for Flynn said in a joint filing that the “matter is now ready to be scheduled for sentencing.”

Both sides asked the judge to set a date for sentencing.

Dec. 4, 2018

Mueller filed a memorandum recommending a lenient sentence, with the possibility of no prison time, for Flynn, stating that he has offered “substantial” help to investigators about “several ongoing investigations.”

“Given the defendant’s substantial assistance and other considerations set forth below, a sentence at the low end of the guideline range, including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration—is appropriate and warranted,” the memo said.

Flynn sat for 19 interviews with Mueller’s team and other Justice Department attorneys, according to the memo, and a heavily redacted supplemental filing attached. The documents did not provide specifics about what exactly Mueller had learned from Flynn but indicated that he provided “documents and communications” about his time working with the Trump administration during the transition period.

Dec. 9, 2018

In a panel appearance with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, former FBI Director Comey was asked how FBI agents ended up at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview Flynn. Comey’s response provided new details about the circumstances that fueled criticism of the bureau’s conduct:

“I sent them,” Comey said, adding that it was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

The interview was arranged directly with Flynn, which was not typical protocol.

“If the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals of who would be there,” Comey said, describing how things normally would work.

Regarding his decision to bypass those steps, he said: “I thought: ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple guys over.'”

Dec. 12, 2018

Flynn’s attorneys said in a court filing that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe nudged Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that led to his guilty plea.

The document revealed that the FBI took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency’s sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who was also charged with making false statements to federal investigators.

Flynn’s attorneys alleged that the FBI agents in his case did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to “confront” him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with Kislyak.

If “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used . . . to try to refresh his recollection,” FBI agents wrote in the so-called “302” witness interview report cited by the filing. “If Flynn still would not confirm what he said . . . they would not confront him or talk him through it.”

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Dec. 14, 2018

Mueller faces an afternoon deadline to produce the sensitive FBI documents related to Flynn’s interviews.

Sullivan’s brief order stated that Mueller can choose to file the materials under seal if necessary.

Sullivan also ordered the Flynn team to turn over the documents backing up their assertions.

Sullivan has the authority to toss Flynn’s guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn’s constitutional right to counsel, although he has given no indications that he intends to do so.

March 2019

By early March 2019, Flynn sought another delay in his sentencing, saying that he could potentially cooperate further with the Justice Department.

March 24, 2019

Attorney General Bill Barr released the “principle conclusions” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s completed Russia probe. Barr revealed that Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated” with Russians who worked on hacking efforts in the 2016 presidential election, “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

April 18, 2019

After two years of suspense, Mueller’s report was released into Washington’s partisan scrum Thursday showing investigators did not find evidence of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia – as Barr declared in March– but revealing an array of controversial actions by the president that were examined as part of the investigation’s obstruction inquiry.

May 29, 2019

Mueller announced the investigation was complete, and that the special counsel’s office had been closed.

June 6, 2019

Michael Flynn fired his legal team as he awaited sentencing, ending his relationship with Covington & Burling lawyers Robert Kelner and Stephen Anthony.

June 12, 2019

Flynn, after firing his legal team, hired a vocal-Mueller critic to represent him: his current attorney, Sidney Powell.

Powell, a former federal prosecutor, upon joining Flynn’s defense said he would continue to cooperate with the government.

August 2019

Powell filed a motion saying Flynn’s case was still “not ready for sentencing,” citing her position as “new counsel” and the timeline of receiving necessary files and documents that would be critical to the defense of her client.

Powell also claimed in the filing that the government was denying her request for security clearances needed to review classified material pertaining to Flynn, including transcripts and recordings of phone calls that “supposedly underpin the charges against” him.

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED TIMELINE OF EVENTS

October 2019

Justice Department attorneys Brandon Van Grack, Jocelyn Ballantine and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu fired back against Powell and Flynn’s defense, saying that their various information requests from the government were “either irrelevant or seek information that has already been provided to them.”

The DOJ attorneys said Powell’s filing in August was “in fact an effort by the defendant to have his case dismissed.”

“Since the beginning of their involvement, the defendant’s new counsel, have sought to get the charges dropped, professed their client’s actual innocence, and perpetuated conspiracy theories, all while stating that the defendant does not intend to withdraw his guilty plea,” they wrote.

Oct. 25, 2019

Powell filed a motion urging the court to “dismiss the entire prosecution for outrageous government misconduct.”

Powell, at the time, alleged that FBI officials manipulated Flynn’s FBI 302 from his initial January 2017 interview with federal prosecutors. 302s are forms used by agents to report or summarize interviews.

Oct. 29, 2019

Days later, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan canceled a hearing, citing Powell’s motion demanding that the government produce all evidence related to Flynn and dismiss the prosecution altogether.

November 2019

Sullivan agreed to postpone Flynn’s sentencing—again—until the release of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the Russia probe.

December 2019

Sullivan set a Jan. 28 sentencing date for Flynn but rejected his legal team’s requests for exculpatory information that may have been withheld by the FBI. Sullivan also said that Flynn waived his fundamental constitutional rights by pleading guilty to making false statements in the first place.

Flynn’s guilty pleas, Sullivan wrote, “effectively bar him from raising claims based on any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Even if Flynn had not waived his Fourth Amendment rights, Sullivan argued that Flynn still needed to “establish that the requested information is favorable” to his defense in order to obtain it — something he has “failed” to do, the judge said.

Jan. 7, 2020

The Justice Department recommended up to six months of prison time for Flynn, claiming he has refused to “accept responsibility” for his actions.

“Given the serious nature of the defendant’s offense, his apparent failure to accept responsibility, his failure to complete his cooperation in—and his affirmative efforts to undermine—the prosecution of [ex-Flynn associate] Bijan Rafiekian … the government recommends that the court sentence the defendant within the applicable Guidelines range of 0 to 6 months of incarceration,” federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo on Tuesday.

The filing represents a stark change from a prior Justice Department recommendation, which suggested that Flynn “receive a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.” Federal prosecutors, in earlier suggesting that Flynn not serve any prison time, had cited his cooperation with other federal cases, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

MICHAEL FLYNN CHARGES DROPPED TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Jan. 14, 2020

Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to the FBI, citing “bad faith, vindictiveness, and a breach of the plea agreement” by the government.

“The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel,” Powell wrote in the filing. “This can only be because with new, unconflicted counsel, Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution.

Jan. 16, 2020

Sullivan pushed back Flynn’s sentencing again, bumping the date to Feb. 27, after Flynn motioned to withdraw his guilty plea.

Feb. 9, 2020

Federal prosecutors proposed delaying approaching deadlines in the Flynn case.  Prosecutors argued that Flynn’s former attorneys should testify after he claimed to receive ineffective assistance from them.

“The government requests that the Court suspend the current briefing schedule concerning the defendant’s [motion] until such time as the government has been able to confer with Covington regarding the information it seeks,” prosecutors wrote.

Feb. 10, 2020

Sullivan indefinitely postponed Flynn’s sentencing date after federal prosecutors filed their motion to delay the deadlines.

Feb. 14, 2020

Barr tapped U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, Jeff Jensen, to review Flynn’s case.

Jensen was assigned to work hand-in-hand with the lead prosecutor of Flynn case, Brandon Van Grack.

March 15, 2020

President Trump said he was “strongly considering” a pardon for Flynn after reports that the Justice Department misplaced the records from Flynn’s January 2017 initial interview with federal prosecutors.

“So now it is reported that, after destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has ‘lost’ the records of General Michael Flynn,” Trump tweeted. “How convenient. I am strongly considering a Full Pardon!”

April 29, 2020

New internal FBI documents were unsealed in late April, revealing that top bureau officials discussed their motivations for interviewing then-national security adviser Flynn in the White House in January 2017—and openly questioned if their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

The handwritten notes—written by the FBI’s former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told—further suggested that agents planned in the alternative to get Flynn “to admit to breaking the Logan Act” when he spoke to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

The Logan Act is an obscure statute that has never been used in a criminal prosecution; enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones, it was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.

“What is our goal?” one of the notes read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

“If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide,” another note read. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called the document’s implications “chilling.”

The memo appears to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths. “I don’t see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him,” one note reads. Flynn did not ultimately admit to wrongdoing in the interview.

FBI DISCUSSED INTERVIEWING MICHAEL FLYNN ‘TO GET HIM TO LIE’ AND ‘GET HIM FIRED,’ HANDWRITTEN NOTES SHOW

The document indicates that the agents at least discussed the merits of a by-the-book approach: “If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious.”

Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, told Fox News after the document release that “this persecution will have to be thrown out entirely.”

May 7, 2020

The Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn.

“The Government has determined, pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice,” the filing said.

DAWG SAYS: I KNOW A LONG READ BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY, THE FBI, HANDLES THEIR BUSINESS WITH BIASED BASED ON POLITICS NOT THE FACTS.

I AM CURIOUS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE INVOLVED, STILL WORKING?

SOUNDS FAMILIAR TO SOME RECENT CASES IN STANISLAUS COUNTY OF LATE.


JUSTICE IN AMERICA: WARREN YATES COMMENTARY………

I HEARD A JOKE THE OTHER DAY

IT WASN’T FUNNY

IT’S CALLED THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR

By Warren Yates 8-24-17


As a disclaimer for my commentaries, I wish to go on record as I have in numerous other commentaries that have been posted. I spent 27 years in law enforcement and fully support all legitimate and unbiased law enforcement in our country, state, county and city dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line 24 hours a day to protect us. The four keywords in my commentaries are “legitimate”, “dedicated”, “ethical” and “unbiased”. I totally reject an agenda driven prosecution whose sole purpose is not to find justice, but to decimate the lives, reputations and physical well-zero being of innocent people.

I wholeheartedly support all of law enforcement who performs their duties in a legitimate, dedicated, ethical and unbiased way. I would estimate that that covers 98 to 99% of our law enforcement communities. I have many friends in law enforcement and know that they all espouse those qualities.

In speaking of law enforcement, this includes the office of the Dist. Atty. the Dist. Atty. is the second highest law enforcement official in the county. The problem with Stanislaus County district attorney’s office is that their fearlessl liar leader like many of her minions within that office whether they be certain deputy district attorney’s, certain chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s or certain district attorney’s investigators, they obviously forgot about ethical and unbiased.

I am writing this article to show that there are some corrupt district attorney’s, some corrupt deputy district attorney’s, some corrupt chief Deputy Dist. Atty.’s and certainly many but not all corrupt district attorney investigators. In this article, I am going to point out some egregious prosecutorial misconduct not only committed here in Stanislaus County but also in Sacramento County. Also in this article, I will show you the difference between the teeth in the New York State Bar and in the California State Bar. When I speak about teeth as you will see the California State Bar is only “gumming” it.

Since becoming a private investigator, I have worked mainly for criminal defense attorneys. In my law enforcement days, I was a “hook em and book em” cop. Every person I arrested was a legitimate arrest and I knew what to charge as I booked them. After bucking them and writing the police report I then went home I forgot about them until I had to go to court. I slept very well at night knowing that during the arrests I made, I did not have to try to cover something up like a cat does and you know what cats cover up.

One evening I was watching a show similar to Dateline or 20/20 and it was about a woman, Gloria Killian, who had been arrested, convicted and sent to prison for a murder she did not commit or take part in. As I highlight this story for you, you will see that some of the malicious and egregious violations of failing to disclose exculpatory evidence resulted in an innocent person sitting in state prison for 17 years. This prosecutorial misconduct happened in Sacramento County much like the prosecutorial misconduct that is currently happening in Stanislaus County.

I have seen from personal experience that certain law enforcement personnel are able to juggle the booking charges in order to punish an arrestee before they are even convicted of any offense. I have seen one of the most egregious misuses of authority and the law in two of the cases I have been an investigator on.

When a person is being arrested and rather than turning around and submitting to arrest they may struggle somewhat and slightly resist but they are eventually taken into custody with no injuries to either the arrestee or the officer. I am involved in two cases in which the officer did not like the arrestee and rather than adding misdemeanor 148 PC which is resisting delaying or obstructing an officer, they would add the felony charge of 69 PC which in part states 69.  (a) Every person who attempts, by means of any threat or violence, to deter or prevent an executive officer…”. Now under California law police officers are considered executive officers.

The officer does not have to be injured or have to be struck but merely have a person threaten them to be charged with 69 PC. Officers who charge 69 PC rather than misdemeanor 148 PC know that bail goes from a few hundred or even release on citation to bail that can be in excess of $10,000. The officer knows of the majority of people arrested do not have $10,000 in the bank or even $1000 to secure the services of a bail bondsman. So, the arrestee sits in jail until his case is heard in court. This is punishment meted out by the police officer before the conviction of the arrestee.

There is a current case I am following here in Stanislaus County in which a multimillionaire entrepreneur that lives in luxury in San Francisco and who has businesses worldwide has been charged with more than 11 felony counts involving sexual misconduct with a girl starting when she was 14 years old. Some of the charges are sodomy, unlawful sexual intercourse with the perpetrator being over 21 years old and this guy is 43 and the victim is under 16, lewd and lascivious acts child under 14 or 15 with the defendant then 10 years older and oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age.

He is from Ukraine and is currently in court trying to get his passport back to allegedly check on some of his overseas businesses. It is felt that the reason he wishes to get his passport back is so that he can flee to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the United States. So far, he has been thwarted in his efforts to get his passport back. The reason this is mentioned is because when I looked at this person’s website and LinkedIn for his businesses, he stated he had gone to the University of California Boalt Hall School of Law. So I checked on the California State Bar website and he is not listed there.

But I saw on his resume that he stated he was a corporate attorney for a law firm in New York. So I checked the New York State bar website and looked him up there. Lo and behold, Saints preserve us, you can guess what I found. Since you can’t guess I’m going to go ahead and tell you so here we go.


“Respondent Dxxxxx Sxxxxx was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on November 16, 1998. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent has maintained his principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [*2]

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), on the ground that the federal criminal offense he pleaded guilty to, namely, unlawful access to stored communications and aiding and abetting thereof, if committed in New York, would be a felony and thus, is a proper predicate for automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [e]; see Matter of Kim, 209 AD2d 127 [1995]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b). In addition, respondent’s cross motion should be denied.

Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York nunc pro tunc to October 1, 2004.

The reason I am bringing this child sexual predators’ case up is to show that the New York State bar deals harshly with attorneys who violate the code of ethics of the lawyer’s oath as opposed to the California State Bar which is the joke of which I am speaking. Below is a brief overview of a case in which the Sacramento County Deputy Dist. Atty. caused an innocent person to sit in prison for 17 years.

In December 1981, two men disguised as telephone repairmen entered the home of an elderly couple in Rosemont, California, shot both occupants, killing one, and stole six suitcases full of silver.  An anonymous phone call led to the arrest of one of the perpetrators, Gary Masse.  Masse’s wife told police that a woman named “Gloria” planned the robbery.


Gloria Killian was initially arrested along with Masse, but charges against her were dropped after a preliminary hearing.  However, after Masse was convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life without parole, he contacted the Sacramento sheriff to see if he could reduce his sentence by testifying against two others he claimed were involved, Killian and a man named DeSantis.  Killian was rearrested and tried.  DeSantis testified at his separate trial that Killian was not involved in the crime and that he had never met her.  But Masse testified against Killian at her trial and, based solely on his testimony, a jury convicted Killian of first-degree murder, attempted murder, burglary, robbery, and conspiracy; she was sentenced to 32-years-to-life in prison.

The prosecution failed to give the defense (nothing to see here folks) letters from Masse seeking a deal in exchange for his testimony that indicated that he may have been lying.  Masse later admitted that much of the evidence he gave was false, including his testimony that he had not made a deal with the prosecution in exchange for testimony, and that Killian was the mastermind behind the robbery.  Killian’s conviction was overturned and she was released from prison on August 8, 2002 after serving a total of 17 ½ years on a sentence of 32 years to life for a crime that she did not commit. Originally, she was charged with the death penalty. Throughout her trial and incarceration, she always maintained her innocence.

For those of you following the Carson 8 case, the parallel to the Gloria Killian case is very obvious. In both cases we have criminal scumbags scurrying around like cockroaches trying to keep from being stepped on that will say anything a district attorney wants to hear to try to receive repeated continuances, a lighter sentence or better yet a dismissal of charges (which has happened to several criminals on the prosecution’s witness list in the Carson 8 case). You merely need to cross reference the witnesses on the district attorney’s witness list with the Stanislaus County court index to verify this. Or research on Dawgs Blog at Dawgonnit.com.

In the Gloria Killian case, In March 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that her conviction was based solely on perjured testimony and overturned her conviction. In 2008, Christopher Cleland, the District Attorney who prosecuted her, was tried by the State Bar of California and found guilty of unethical conduct in her case. Now why do you think this stalwart champion of justice Deputy Dist. Atty. Cleland was found guilty? Well let’s just see. (Don’t forget our Stanislaus County stalwart champions of justice, fladager and ferreira)

A few days after the murder, an anonymous phone call to Sacramento authorities identified DeSantis and Masse, who are cousins, as the perpetrators. When police went looking for Masse, his wife told them “a woman named Gloria” had planned the robbery. A few days later, Masse surrendered to the police and Killian was arrested. But after a preliminary hearing, charges against her were dismissed.

Masse was convicted of first degree felony murder in May 1983 and sentenced to life without possibility of parole. Soon after being sentenced, he contacted the Sacramento sheriff’s office “to see if any deals could be struck”, (Just like the Carson 8 case in Stanislaus County) according to the 9th Circuit decision.

After being told that prosecutors would help him obtain a sentence reduction, (Like a certain embezzler named Romero in Stanislaus County) Masse implicated his cousin, DeSantis, and Killian, who was a casual acquaintance. After he agreed to help the prosecutors, Masse’s sentence was recalled at the request of the prosecution and he remained in custody without a sentence for three years.

Killian was rearrested in June 1983 and charged, along with DeSantis. DeSantis was tried first and testified that Killian was not involved in the planning or commission of the crime and that he had never met her or heard of her.

DeSantis also testified that Masse had told him about a prior aborted attempt to rob the Davies family in which Masse’s wife tried to get into the home by telling the Davies she needed to make a phone call.

Masse was the key witness against Killian at her 1986 trial. In addition to testifying that she dreamed up the plot, Masse said that Killian accompanied him to the Davies home during the earlier robbery attempt. He also testified that after the robbery, she called to demand a share of the proceeds. Masse also swore that he had no leniency deal with the prosecution. (Just like Ronald Glenn Cooper Jr. and Michael Cooley here in Stanislaus County. Move along folks. Nothing to see here!!!). Really? Really?

Killian was convicted of first degree felony murder, robbery and conspiracy and received a sentence of 32 years to life.

The 9th Circuit decision emphasized that Masse was the “make or break witness” against her.

After Killian exhausted her state court appeals, Genego raised perjury allegations at a hearing before federal Magistrate Judge Gregory Hollows in Sacramento in 2000.

At that hearing, Masse admitted that he had told several lies in the crucial elements of his testimony. Among them were that in reality he had a leniency deal, that Killian was not the “master planner” of the robbery and that she had not called demanding a share of the robbery proceeds.

“Masse’s disregard for the truth is best revealed by a letter he wrote to the prosecutor shortly after Killian’s trial [while awaiting his own resentencing] in which he emphasized that he ‘lied [his] ass off on the stand’ for the government”, (Just like the prosecution witnesses in the Carson 8 case here in Stanislaus County) Hawkins noted in his opinion Wednesday.

That letter was never disclosed to Killian; nor was one that prosecutors sent under seal to a Sacramento trial judge stating its intention to support Masse’s resentencing as a result of his cooperation. Masse subsequently had his sentence reduced to life with possibility of parole.

Read transcript.of.garry.masse.letter-2

The letters were discovered years later in DeSantis’ challenge to his death sentence and were given to Genego by DeSantis’ attorneys.

Masse also admitted at the hearing before Hollows that if he had told the truth at Killian’s trial, “it would have taken Killian out of participating in the crime,” the 9th Circuit decision noted.

Despite Masse’s admissions, Hollows recommended to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell that the conviction be upheld; Burrell accepted the recommendation.

Burrell ruled that the level of prejudice Killian suffered as a result of each perjurious statement was insufficient to conclude that reasonable jurors would have doubts about the verdict they rendered.

But the appeals court said that Burrell had interpreted the relevant cases too narrowly.

“Because Masse perjured himself several times (Like the prosecution witnesses in the Carson 8 case) and because he was the ‘make or break witness’ for the state, there is a reasonable probability that, without all the perjury, the result of the [trial] would have been different,” Judge Hawkins wrote. His decision was joined by Judges Procter Hug Jr. and Dorothy W. Nelson.

The appellate judges also emphasized that the prosecutors “took advantage of Masse’s perjury, regarding his deal, arguing at closing that ‘we have nothing to do with how much time Gary Masse serves.'”


Now retired Deputy DA Christopher Cleland

Christopher T. Cleland, the Sacramento deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case, said he had not yet read the decision, but characterized it as “a gross miscarriage.”

Cleland said he still believes that Masse told the truth at trial. “The 9th Circuit isn’t going to tell me [otherwise],” he said.

Asked about the letter in which Masse admitted lying, Cleland said it was simply “an attempt to get our attention” while Masse was awaiting resentencing. “It is much ado about nothing.”

But veteran defense lawyer Genego described the case “as one of the most egregious and serious violations of a person’s right to a fair trial that I have ever seen.”

Genego said, “There is no question that the prosecutors had an ethical obligation to bring that letter to the attention of the court and Killian or her lawyer.”

Also watch this video discussing the deals made to the original person convicted:

Death Row Stories: Gloria Killian (Note: 2hr video.) 15 minuet mark gets to killers deal and 28 min. mark Masse gets special visits at home. (sound familiar?)


Brady versus Maryland was decided May 13, 1963. The gist of Brady versus Maryland is that all exculpatory evidence that the district attorney’s office has must be disclosed to the defense with no exceptions. Those that withhold exculpatory evidence can be criminally prosecuted. Gloria Killian’s case was heard in 1986.

So, people, in this example we have a pompous ass deputy district attorney 23 years later that has no regard to abide by the law and in fact contemptuously responds to the 9th Circuit Court by telling the court that it won’t tell him otherwise. There is no question that this pompous ass as no respect to federal court. By the way, this pompous asses name is Christopher T. Cleland.

After this innocent woman spent 17 and a half years locked in a state prison before she was exonerated, pompous ass Cleland states “It is much ado about nothing”. The unmitigated gall that pompous ass Cleland exhibits in his remarks places him under the pond slime in a septic tank as far as compassion and credibility goes. His utter disdain and lack of remorse for robbing a young woman of the middle years of her life by himself violating the law is beyond comprehension.

In 2008, pompous ass turd Christopher Cleland, the district attorney who prosecuted her, was tried by the State Bar of California and found guilty of unethical conduct in her case. Now I am sure that the California State Bar must have levied serious repercussions against pompous ass Cleland. There are many consequences I could suggest to show pompous ass Cleland that he is not above the law and in fact subject to it. At the very least, castration
I mean castigation should include but not be limited to permanent disbarment. So I am quite sure that the California State Bar will make an example out of pompous ass Cleland as a deterrent to other lawyers who wish to violate the law and the principles of Brady versus Maryland. (Hint:It didn’t deter fladager and ferreira from punching Brady vs Maryland in the gut in the Carson 8 hearing. They are just as big pompous asses as turd Cleland was).

So let’s see what kind of an example the State Bar made out of pompous ass turd Cleland after he broke the law, cost a young woman 17 years of her life in prison for something she didn’t do and then slap the 9th Circuit Court in the face because of their decision overturning his egregious and unlawful prosecution of an innocent person.

So I looked up pompous ass Cleland on the State Bar website and here is what it turned up:

Attorney Search

Christopher Thomas Cleland – #44976

Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 44976    
Address: 716 34th St
Sacramento, CA 95816-3822
Phone Number: (916) 446-7423
Fax Number: Not Available
Email: Not Available 
County: Sacramento Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA
District: District 3    
Sections: None Law School: Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
1/15/1970 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Disciplinary and Related Actions
This member has no public record of discipline.
Administrative Actions
This member has no public record of administrative actions.

The State Bar website says pompous ass Cleveland has no public record of discipline and no public record of administrative actions. However, if you go to the following website: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/03/14/cleland.-.prosecutor.admonishment.pdf you will see that after the trial he was severely beaten and flogged by the State Bar with an”admonishment”. Now you can see why fladager and ferreira have no fear of violating the law and Brady versus Maryland. That is why State Bar is nothing but a laughingstock for people who follow alleged justice in commiefornia.

And as you can see pompous ass turd Cleland is still practicing law in Sacramento California. He retired from the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and is now in private practice practicing. He will always be practicing because he will never get it right. It makes me wonder how some lowlife alleged professionals can sleep at night knowing they robbed a young woman of 17 years of her life. But then I remembered, lowlifes have no conscience.

Citizens do not waste your time trying to get an incompetent, useless, inapt, bundling, ineffectual and lazy attorney to be held accountable by the commiefornia State Bar. You would have much more success urinating on a 10,000 acre forest fire. The best and only solution would be to sue the attorney civil court for ineffectual counsel.

Now to clarify the difference between the New York State Bar and the commiefornia State Bar, I will remind you that the predator pedophile mentioned earlier in this article pled guilty to illegal computer hacking crimes which if committed in New York would be a felony.

On October 1, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, respondent pleaded guilty to Count one of the indictment, namely, unlawful access to stored communications and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 USC subsection 2701 and 2 (b), which is a federal felony. Count one involved the deletion of a voicemail on August 27, 2003.

On January 3, 2005, respondent was sentenced to probation for a term of two years, ordered to pay a $5000 fine and a special assessment of $100.

October 20, 2005, the predator pedophile was disbarred in the state of New York. It took only nine months for the State Bar of New York to disbar this crooked predator pedophile attorney for a federal offense of what amounted to computer hacking for profit.

Gloria Killian was released in August 2002 after being exonerated. On November 4, 2008, more than six years later after pompous ass Cleland’s trial at the state bar in commiefornia, he was slapped on the wrist. What a terribly egregious miscarriage of justice. Not only that pompous ass Cleveland didn’t have to be held accountable for his egregious prosecutorial misconduct but he is still allowed to practice law. There can be little doubt as to why the public has a somewhat negative opinion about attorneys and the commiefornia State Bar.

I had intended to write more but have to wrap this article up for now and get it out. Plus, I’m tired and sick of organizations that hold their own kind to a lesser standard than what is expected of them.

Moral of the story is don’t waste your time complaining about an attorney to the commiefornia State Bar. They are getting tired of slapping people on the wrist.


JUSTICE IN AMERICA: IS IT REAL?

STANISLAUS COUNTY VS EDWARD DEANDRE MITCHELL

By Marty Carlson

7-8-2017


JUNE 7, 2006: Balbir Boyal, owner of BK’s Liquor, Food & Gas on Riverside Drive, is shot and killed during an attempted robbery.

JUNE 15,2006: Edward Deandre Mitchell of Modesto and Laron Tavon Davis, of Ceres are arrested and charged in the crimes.

July 2017: 11 years later Edward DeAndre Mitchell was acquitted on the homicide charges but was convicted on 3 robberies.

Laron Davis case in this is already been adjudicated in fact he is no longer in custody and has served his time.

Also of note Frank Carson was his attorney,

My focus in this article is the case of Edward DeAndre Mitchell who was arrested on June 15, 2006 he has been in custody the entire time and was not taken to trial until May of 2017, this week a jury acquitted Mitchell on the homicide charges.

One of the witnesses that testified against Mitchell is a gentleman by the name of James Williams. Williams had first implicated Mitchell in the string of robberies in 2006 were obviously the last one turned violent.

In June 2006 Williams was arrested on suspicion of robbing a convenience store where at that time Williams insisted Mitchell was responsible for the robberies until investigator showed him a picture from a video of him doing the robberies himself.

David Heatley, Mitchell’s attorney has told the jury that Williams is a heroin addict and a member of a notorious Oakland street gang defense attorney has suggested that Davis lied to authorities to get his plea deal and avoid identifying Williams as the man responsible for the violent robberies.

He also said that Williams is supposedly a member of the Oakland “nutcase” street gang, which the members are known for committee robberies and gratuitous murders during some of those robberies.

All this are things that typically go on in these types of cases.

My main focus of this article is Edward Mitchell was arrested in June 2006 and did not get to trial until May 2017. Why does it take 11 years to get a homicide case to trial when you have this type of evidence by the way of witnesses and he was arrested right away?

There seems to be a pattern here in Stanislaus County where cases are continually drawn out and never adjudicated. A recent commentary by Warren Yates, it was noted 100 continuances in the Mark Davis cases that had five pending felony charges.


We have people in the Frank Carson case, like Mike Cooley and Eula Keyes, who are witnesses who have pending minor drug charges but continue to have more than 50 continuances in a case that started in 2014. See Stanislaus County court case # 1471029 and 1453918

This is also noted in the Sabrina Romero case, where there were at least 25 continuances, and she walked away with a misdemeanor on a $12,000 embezzlement charge. In addition, they did not even notify the victim, her former employer, that a deal had been struck and she would be playing out. According to Marcy’s law the victim is entitled to make an impact statement to the court prior to sentencing in the victim in this case was denied that opportunity. In addition, the minute order which was placed on Dawgs Blog showed no order of restitution to the victim.


British Prime Minister William E Gladstone stated in an 1868 speech that justice delayed is justice denied, how we have evolved into such a long-drawn system to adjudicate our court cases is beyond me. There are many people starting to ask these questions and there’s finger-pointing going on by everybody involved but nobody willing to take responsibility or take the bull by the horns.

Is it a love of the criminal element by the law enforcement community in this county?

Stanislaus County district attorney Birgit Fladager has been quoted as saying they relish and work hard to develop informants in cases. Is this one of the ways that they do it by wearing people down over a long period of time to get more Information especially from the criminal element?

It appears that we have more criminals running the streets with pending cases and pending sentences that we actually have going to jail or prison or being held accountable because of their willingness, eagerness, and the open-door policy to these criminals by law enforcement in this county. It does not lead to a safer community because anybody can become a victim of the system by these people who are out to save their own bacon and are not concerned about anything else. These people are also committing a large amount of crimes in their daily activities so the community is being victimized in many ways, especially in the tax dollars spent in prosecutions like in the Frank Carson case which is estimated over $7 million at this point.

What is the impact on the victims families that are waiting for justice to be done, those are the same people that are supposed to be representing the victims not endorsing criminal behavior.

You guys tell me what you think the solutions are.

IS THERE JUSTICE IN AMERICA?


Wrong man convicted in 1957 murder

An Illinois prosecutor on Friday said that new evidence has persuaded him that a 75-year-old man was wrongly convicted in 2012 for the decades-old murder of a 7-year-old girl in the northern Illinois town of Sycamore.

Jack McCullough, a former cop in Washington state who was convicted in a bench trial for the abduction and killing of Maria Ridulph, had long insisted he wasn’t even in Sycamore, about 65 miles from Chicago, when Maria was abducted in December 1957. Her body was found in the nearby town of Galena five months later.

Newly found phone records and other evidence bolster McCullough’s defense that he was 35 miles from the small farm community at the time of Maria’s abduction, says DeKalb County State’s Attorney Richard Schmack.

McCullough, who was 17 at the time of the incident, had long contended he was at a U.S. Air Force recruitment center in Rockford at the time of the abduction. He said he made a collect call home from a payphone at the Rockford post office asking for a ride home that supported his alibi.

The incident shook the community and captured national attention — even President Dwight Eisenhower took notice of it — as police and the FBI grappled with the case. When McCullough, who was living in the Seattle area, was charged in 2011, it was believed to have been the oldest cold case ever to go to trial.

“I know that there are people who will never believe that he is not responsible for the crime,” said Schmack, who announced his findings after completing a six-month review of the case that was spurred by McCullough’s push for a new trial.

“Many of these people are my neighbors in Sycamore. But I cannot allow that to sway me from my sworn duty to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state of Illinois, and to perform faithfully the primary duty of my office: ‘To seek justice, not merely to convict.’ ”

Police had interviewed McCullough, who previously went by the name John Tessier, soon after the killing and said his alibi had checked out. But the Illinois State Police reopened the case in 2010 after getting a tip from McCullough’s sister, Janet, who said their mother told her weeks before her death that McCullough had committed the crime.

McCullough is due to appear in court Tuesday in Sycamore, and Schmack said he will not oppose a defense motion to dismiss the conviction. Schmack said he believes that McCullough, who is serving his life sentence at a prison in Pontiac, Illinois, could be released “very soon.”

Schmack said that while the state’s attorney and FBI accepted McCullough’s alibi as they investigated Maria’s murder in 1957 and 1958, the judge in 2012 would not allow defense attorneys to present the evidence because it was derived from FBI documents or police reports that could not be substantiated by agents.

“Because all of the police officers were dead and you couldn’t call them as witnesses, you couldn’t introduce the police reports” under Illinois statute, Schmack said Friday after releasing his findings.

But Schmack, who did not head the state’s attorney’s office at the time of McCullough’s prosecution, said the judge failed to consider an “ancient documents exception” in state law that would have allowed the police reports to be considered.

Justice in America: Frank Carson and the others. Part1

This going to be a multi part series on one case in Stanislaus County and the interesting ways they have doing things.

These below pictured people have been arrested in the murder of Korey Kauffman in Turlock, Ca.

Kaufmann investigation timeline

  • January 2012: Carson represents Robert Lee Woody when he is accused of receiving stolen property. The charge eventually is dropped.
  • March 2012: Korey Kauffman leaves a friend’s house on Lander Avenue in Turlock and goes missing.
  • Oct. 16, 2013: A body found by hunters in August 2013 in the Stanislaus National Forest is determined to be Korey Kauffman. Detectives term his death “suspicious” and appeal for help from the public to determine what happened.
  • Dec. 3, 2013: Praveen Singh (aka Prajeer Singh), a Modesto bail agent accused of using his position to solicit gang members to commit violent crimes, is named as a person of interest in the case. Singh also has been employed by criminal defense attorney and district attorney candidate Frank Carson. Carson, Singh’s attorney, says Singh “has done work for us” as a private investigator.
  • March 6, 2014: After a seven-month, five-agency investigation, Robert Lee Woody, 38, is arrested on charges of murder, conspiracy and a special enhancement for lying in wait. The criminal complaint against Woody also shows the conspiracy charge is supported by four allegations of involvement with three co-conspirators, who are listed only as B, C and D.
  • March 15, 2014: Woody pleads not guilty on charges of murder and conspiracy and denies a special enhancement for lying in wait.
  • March 19, 2014: Superior Court Judge Ricardo Córdova doesn’t reveal why he would recuse himself from Woody’s case, but he does say the rest of the judges in the courthouse likely would recuse themselves if the three other people are charged – a possible indication that the three people have some connection to the courthouse.
  • March 22, 2014: Carson speaks to a group of licensed private investigators about his run to become the next Stanislaus County district attorney. He emphatically denies any involvement in an alleged criminal conspiracy linked to the death of Kauffman.
  • April 11, 2014: Woody makes a brief appearance for a pretrial hearing. The hearing is continued to later in the month and prosecutor Dave Harris tells the judge that the District Attorney’s Office has not made a decision about the penalty that will be pursued against the defendant.
  • July 18, 2014: Woody returns to court for a pretrial hearing. Harris tells the judge the District Attorney’s Office will not seek the death penalty against Woody.
  • Aug. 2, 2014: Praveen Singh, the Modesto bail agent facing criminal charges, files a claim against Stanislaus County seeking $20 million in damages, asserting he has been harassed repeatedly by investigators from the District Attorney’s Office. He alleges the investigators abused their power, trying to pressure him into providing information that links Carson to Kauffman’s death.
  • Aug. 30. 2014: Brothers Baljit Athwal and Daljit Atwal, who spell their last name differently, owners of the Pop-N-Cork Liquor stores in Turlock, file a claim against the cities of Modesto, Turlock and Ceres and Stanislaus County saying they have been repeatedly harassed by law enforcement involved in the Kauffman murder investigation. They later file a federal lawsuit against local authorities.
  • June 3, 2014: Carson is defeated by incumbent Birgit Fladager in the race for Stanislaus County district attorney.
  • June 27, 2015: Praveen Singh, 36, and his girlfriend, Jyoteshna Karan, 43, are arrested. Singh, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against local law enforcement officials, also faces local criminal charges for allegedly asking inmates to commit crimes for him. Singh says he has been, since early 2013, the subject of an erroneous and malicious investigation into Kauffman’s murder, according to a federal lawsuit filed by Singh’s Southern California-based attorney, Alex Herrera. The lawsuit alleges that investigators have abused their power, arresting Singh three times, and none of the charges are linked to the murder investigation.
  • Aug. 13, 2015: Frank Clifford Carson, Georgia Geanette DeFilippo, Daljit Singh Atwal, Baljit Singh Athwal, Walter Wesley Wells and Robert Lee Woody are arrested; the charges include first-degree murder, lying in wait, firearm enhancement, conspiracy to commit a crime and false imprisonment. Christina Anne DeFilippo, Scott J. McFarlane and Eduardo Quintanar Jr. are arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime and accessory.

Frank Carson is a prominent attorney that has beaten the DA’s office badly over the years and had an unsuccessful run for the DA’s job in 2014.

The campaign was an extremely contentious one where Carson made many claims of impropriety against the DA’s office which included illegal wiretaps, improper investigation techniques, abuses of power by investigators and the DA herself.

During that campaign the DA felt the need to serve a search warrant on Frank Carson’s property in regards to the murder of Korey Kauffman, to my knowledge there was tangible evidence recovered at the property, which included DNA testing. Yet the investigators and witnesses insist that was the scene where the murder took place.

The witnesses are the biggest piece of non-reliable evidence in this case.

On of Carson’s former clients, Robert Lee Woody, was the first arrested on charges of murder, conspiracy and a special enhancement for lying in wait and is one of the biggest reasons for all these other arrests. And it is an interesting note that the DA’s office very quickly announced they would not seek the death penalty and it also became very clear he was talking to authorities, And has changed stories several times. As with almost of the witness’s in this case they are heavy drug users, dealers, thieves, con artist and most looking at a lot of prison time and from personal experience do not make reliable witnesses due to they do not have good recall from being under the influence all the time and are extremely self-serving and are all looking for a deal in some serious pending charges.

In my opinion the DA’s office has an obvious conflict in this case but they refuse to turn it over to the Attorney General’s office for prosecution, preferring to do it themselves. Seems to me that is a built in appeal for later but Hey what do I know?

Next Is some witness and Arrest information 

Counterfeiter gets green card after evading U.S. lawsuits

This could be the story of an American dream. An immigrant family builds a successful business and buys a four-bedroom house in a quiet neighborhood with good schools for their young son. But not all is as it seems on the steep, curving streets of San Diego’s Rancho Penasquitos.

A 45-year-old Chinese woman, Xu Ting, lives in a brown shingle house with a weedy driveway. She has been sued for counterfeiting by eight luxury brands, including Gucci and Louis Vuitton, and owes Chanel Inc. $6.9 million in damages. None of this has stopped her from becoming a legal permanent resident of the United States and achieving a comfortable suburban life.

China is not the only country with a counterfeiting problem. Most fakes are made in China, but they are sold in America. Counterfeiting is not a priority on par with drug smuggling or money laundering, and is rarely prosecuted as a crime. The lack of legal cooperation with China makes it easy for counterfeiters to move their money beyond the reach of Western law enforcement — and hard to root out counterfeiting kingpins. As long as counterfeiters can stay out of jail and hold on to their profits — and consumers continue to buy — the trade in fakes will likely thrive.

Despite spending millions on brand protection, companies often end up playing whack-a-mole, shutting down producers and distributors of fakes, only to see them pop up again. Xu Ting simply refused to show up in court over the years. Instead, doing graduate studies in statistics at San Diego State University, helped her family amass at least $890,000 in bank accounts back in China, and bought the $585,000 Rancho Penasquitos house with her husband, who has also been involved in selling counterfeit luxury goods, public records and court cases in China and the U.S. show.

“There’s a million ways to game the system,” said Dan Plane, an intellectual property lawyer at Simone IP Services in Hong Kong, who is not involved in litigation against Xu Ting. “Probably the only thing that’s going to stop her is when she passes away — probably on an island resort somewhere — or if she gets arrested.”