Just a quick update on a couple things that I have heard and I want to emphasize these are just rumors at this time and I am attempting to get confirmation.

On February 26, 2020 Frank Carson had a short hearing date department to in front of Judge Zuniga, it was just a continuation date that was rescheduled for May 26, 2020. Department #2 is now been assigned to Judge Besse. I am not aware of the exact calendar that judge Bessie runs in that courtroom but is supposed to be a heavy calendar. Again I have no confirmation but I received information that judge Zuniga had insisted that the morning calendar for judge Bessie be heard in a different courtroom in the basement, as she was not willing to go to that different courtroom herself. Judge Zuniga’s hearing lasted all of five minutes, as it was just a simple continuation.

I have made several calls and left messages to the court staff to ascertain the truthfulness of that information but have received no response, and I will still continue to try to find out.

In addition, recently Dawgs Blog had reported that the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office had turned over the Frank Carson perjury case to the attorney general’s office and declared a conflict, based on all the civil lawsuits that are involved in this case now.

On this recent court appearance on February 26, 2020 Marlisa Ferriera did appear for the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office and the Atty. Gen.’s office was not present. After making some inquiries I received information, understand again that has not been confirmed, that the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office would not turn over the case to the attorney general’s office if they were going to simply dismiss the case. They wanted to continue the prosecution on this case, and possibly the appearance of Marlisa Ferriera in court two days ago is what has happened.

For two days I’ve been making contact with the Atty. Gen.’s office to ascertain if they were asked to take over the case and in fact I have talked to one individual who took my information and what I was inquiring about and passed it on to the appropriate people. At the time of this writing no response has been received by the Atty. Gen.’s office

So, until we get some confirmation, I will keep trying to gather this information for the sake of accuracy. And I must emphasize this is not confirmed information just something that I’m working on to find out for sure.

If anyone has any information in this situation, please feel free to contact me



Frank Carson had a short hearing today in Department #2 in front of judge Zuniga in regard to his FPPC form 700 perjury case. Marlisa Ferreira was there to represent the district attorneys office.

The case was continued to May 6, 2020 @ 9:00am for trial setting.

There was some more information made available in regards to the Attorney Generals office taking over of the case, but I need to confirm some more facts prior to publishing.

To be continued hopefully soon.


Submitted to the Washington post by Jeffrey D. Stein a public defender in Washington, D.C.

The conversation almost always begins in jail. Sitting with your client in the visitation room, you start preparing them for the most important decision the person has ever made. Though the case is just a few days old, the prosecution has already extended a plea offer that will expire within the week. And, because local laws might require detention for certain charges at the prosecutor’s request, or because criminal justice systems punish those unable to pay bail, your client will have to make that decision while sitting in a cage.

Your client is desperate, stripped of freedom and isolated from family. Such circumstances make those accused of crimes more likely to claim responsibility, even for crimes they did not commit. A 2016 paper analyzing more than 420,000 cases determined that those who gained pretrial release were 15.6 percentage points less likely to be found guilty. Not surprisingly, prosecutors commonly condition plea offers on postponing hearings where defendants may challenge their arrests and request release.

In what little time exists before the plea expires, you dispatch your overworked investigator to identify, find and interview witnesses. In federal and in many local courts, the prosecution is not obligated to reveal its witnesses before trial. You and your investigator do your best to assess whether the case rests on unreliable eyewitnesses, faulty assumptions or witnesses with reasons to fabricate an account, which you cannot fully explore because — remember — the prosecution has not even disclosed who they are.

Why not ask your client for leads? That might work if the person were guilty. Innocent clients are generally the least helpful, because they often cannot tell you what they don’t know.

You lay out options for your client. You could go to trial, but that might mean waiting in jail for months, if not years, before a jury hears the case.

The idealist in you — the one who enrolled in law school to “change the system” and to fight for justice on behalf of those who need it most — hopes your client will proclaim a decision to go to trial. But a wary voice in the back of your head reminds you of the risk and life-altering consequences of losing.

You think back to a man who once visited your office for help getting the record of his sole conviction sealed. Before the conviction, he had a job, a girlfriend and a newborn daughter. Then he lost a drug case in which a pistol was found nearby. At sentencing, the judge acknowledged the inappropriateness of the five-year mandatory minimum and even asked the prosecution to consider dismissing the charge that carried the mandatory time. It didn’t. When he eventually got out, you couldn’t even help him seal his record so he could move forward with his life because, in your jurisdiction, felonies can never be sealed.

The other option, you explain to your client, is to accept the plea offer. In some cases, the sentencing difference between accepting a plea and losing at trial can be a matter of decades. It’s no wonder 95 percent of all defendants accept plea offers. Or that, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, 15 percent of all exonerees — people convicted of crimes later proved to be innocent — originally pleaded guilty. That share rises to 49 percent for people exonerated of manslaughter and 66 percent for those exonerated of drug crimes.

You tell your client that they would probably win at trial, but if they lose, they will go to prison. The plea promises some meaningful benefit: getting out of jail sooner, avoiding deportation, not losing a job, seeing a daughter before her next birthday. But your client would have to accept responsibility for a crime they may not have committed.

The final stage happens in court. Your client has signed the paperwork admitting to something you believe in your gut they did not do. Maybe they acted in self-defense. Maybe they were standing near the actual perpetrator and were presumed guilty by association because of the color of their skin. Maybe they were the victim of an honest misidentification.

The judge turns to you and asks, “Does either counsel know of any reason that I should not accept the defendant’s guilty plea?” You hesitate. You want to shout: “Yes, your honor! This plea is the product of an extortive system of devastating mandatory minimums and lopsided access to evidence. My client faced an impossible choice and is just trying to avoid losing his life to prison.”

But you stand by your client’s decision, which was made based on experiences and emotions only they can know. You reply: “No, your honor.”

The marshals lead your shackled client to a cage behind the courtroom. And the judge moves on to the next case.




Just as a reminder Frank Carson still has a pending case against him with a perjury charge. He is being accused of misrepresenting information on the fair political practices commission form when he ran for district attorney in 2014.

In the preliminary hearing there was an employee of the FPPC who was testifying in regards to that information, and stated that she has never seen a criminal charge filed against anybody resulting from the information on the forms, let alone a felony. It is typically an addendum to the form that is done, and sometimes it may result in a minor fine. But the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office chose to file felony perjury charges against Frank Carson based on that form.

Recently I’ve been hearing rumors about the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office recusing themselves from this case. After a little bit of research and asking a lot of questions, I was able to find out that the Stanislaus County district attorney Birgit Fladager has recused herself and her office stating that there is a conflict of interest.

The Atty. Gen.’s office is now in charge of the prosecution in this case. Unfortunately, if this case does go forward it will still be heard in front of Judge Barbara Zuniga, unless something dramatic happens.

Frank Carson’s next court date is scheduled for February 26, 2020 at 9 AM in Department #2.

Anybody that’s willing and able to go to that hearing please let me know what happens as I am not able to make it. Please provide as much details as possible thanks.

I will keep everyone advised as the information becomes available.



Lawyer Reveals Avenatti Is Being Held in
El Chapo’s Cell at Jail Where Epstein Died

Former dipshit of the day recipient Michael Avenatti is in custody again, his defense attorney detailed in a Monday evening letter the extent of the legal peril that former Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti faces. The letter was only three pages long, but it said a lot.

See letter here:

Avenatti was taken into custody last week in California for allegedly violating his bail conditions. That happened at a disciplinary hearing before the California State Bar Court. This is the necessary context for understanding why attorney Scott A. Srebnick wrote a letter to Judge Paul Gardephe “concerning Mr. Avenatti’s prison conditions” in New York:

We write to inform the Court of Mr. Avenatti’s conditions as a pretrial detainee and to request that the Court inquire into his custody status and direct the Bureau of Prisons to consider his immediate removal to general population. Under Mr. Avenatti’s current conditions of confinement, we cannot effectively prepare for trial and Mr. Avenatti cannot meaningfully assist in his defense.

As the Court is aware, Mr. Avenatti was remanded into custody last week, at the request of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, on the theory that Mr. Avenatti violated his bail conditions in the CDCA because of financial transactions that prompted the prosecutors there to claim that he was an ‘economic danger.’ There was no allegation that Mr. Avenatti was a risk of flight or that he posed a physical danger to anyone or to himself.

Avenatti faces a slew of federal charges coast to coast. He has denied all wrongdoing and says he expects to be fully exonerated.

Here’s what else we learned from the letter.

  • Avenatti was flown to New York on Friday, Jan. 17 after spending three nights in solitary confinement the Santa Ana jail.
  • Avenatti has been held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan, the federal jail where infamous pedophile and accused child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein died in August.
  • Avenatti cell in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) was “reportedly once occupied” by Mexican drug lord El Chapo, infamous in his own right.
  • The floor that cell is on “houses individuals charged with terrorism offenses.”
  • “He has been locked down for 24 hours a day, in solitary confinement, except for attorney visits and two medical exams”; “There is an officer outside his cell 24 hours a day and two cameras focused on him”; “permitted two social calls upon arriving at the facility, but none sense”; “the temperature in his cell feels like it is in the mid-40s. He is forced to sleep with three blankets”; “He has not been permitted to shave.”
  • Avenatti’s lawyer says Avenatti “wants to have an active role in his own defense,” but that the current detainment situation makes that infeasible.
  • Avenatti has not “reviewed any of the new discovery” that the government produced has since last week.

Srebnick asked the judge that Avenatti be moved to general population, “where he has the same ability to confer with counsel as other pretrial detainees.”

“While we understand that there may be hypersensitivity about Mr. Avenatti given the profile of the case, and recent issues at the institution, the situation is truly hampering our ability to prepare for trial,” Srebnick said, seemingly alluding to the Epstein death when mentioning “recent issues.”

They’re asking that Avenatti have access to a computer so he can review discovery, be allowed to meet with his lawyers, and have social call privileges other pretrial detainees get.

The judge has ordered the government to explain by 2 p.m. on Tuesday why the “current conditions of confinement are in place.”


The mother of missing Cal Poly freshman Kristin Smart told the Stockton Record big developments may be coming to the unsolved case.

Denise Smart said she was recently contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and told to be ready for a development that might bring closure to the case.

“Be ready. This is really going to be something you don’t expect. We want to give you the support you need,” Denise said in an interview with the Stockton Record.

The FBI also told Denise that her family might want to “get away for a while” and find a family spokesperson, according to the article.

Kristin was last seen walking towards her Muir Hall room in 1996.

The case has been in and out of the news since she disappeared. The most recent lead was in Fall 2016 when the San Luis Obispo Sheriff found remains at the hillside near the “P.” However, the remains were not related to Smart’s case.


Now that Robert has been released and this case has gone full circle, Dawgs Blog is requesting a interview with Anyone in the Woody Family that would like their side be heard.

The interview will be unedited and played in full.

Contact me at or make a comment below on this post to let me know.

A private message on facebook will do also.

My guess is you may have a lot to say.




This e-mail is to inform you that ROBERT WOODY has been released from custody as of 01/11/2020. The release reason is: Sentence served. If you have any concerns about your immediate safety, contact your local law enforcement agency or, if you have an emergency, call 911.

For more information, contact the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. The telephone number is (209) 525-5630.

This notification is sponsored by the California State VINE Service. It is our hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Thank you,

The VINE Service

SCOTUS TODAY 12-11-2019

Wednesday round-up

Today the Supreme Court wraps up its December sitting with two oral arguments. The first is in Monasky v. Taglieri, which involves the “habitual residence” provision of an international child-abduction convention. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Lachanda Reid and Grant Shillington have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Center.

This morning’s second argument is in McKinney v. Arizona, a capital case in which the court will consider whether current law or the law in effect when a defendant’s conviction originally became final applies to resentencing. This blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court, came from Amy Howe. Robert Reese Oñate and Thomas Shannan preview the case for Cornell. Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for the case.

Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which stems from the federal government’s failure to reimburse health insurance companies for some of the losses created as a result of the Affordable Care Act, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Nina Totenberg reports at NPR that the court “examined Obamacare for the fifth time on Tuesday, only this time the justices cast their skeptical gaze on Republican efforts to hobble the law.” At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that “[p]rivate health insurers are poised to prevail … at the Supreme Court over claims the federal government owes them billions of dollars from a now-defunct financial incentive program in the Affordable Care Act.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at the Daily Caller. Providing analysis at NBC News, Leah Litman maintains that although “[i]t’s not the Supreme Court’s job to give Republicans the laws they couldn’t pass in the legislature,” “the Trump administration implies that it is, … asking the court to peel back some of the most significant provisions of the Affordable Care Act after Congress failed to dismantle the law.”

Yesterday the court issued the first opinion of the term in an argued case: In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the justices ruled 8-1 that the one-year statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies even if the plaintiff does not discover the basis for the lawsuit until after the one-year deadline has passed. Kimberly Robinson reports for Bloomberg Law that “[t]he court rejected extending the time in which a FDCPA case be brought, saying the plain language of the statue unambiguously prohibits that interpretation.”

Analysis of Monday’s argument in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, which asks whether courts can review a request for equitable tolling of the deadline to file a statutory motion to reopen as a question of law, or whether it is a question of fact that cannot be reviewed, comes from Kit Johnson. John Duffy analyzes Monday’s second argument, in Thryv v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in which the court will decide whether federal patent law allows an appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute a procedure for challenging the validity of a patent after a finding that a one-year time bar does not apply, for this blog. At PatentlyO (via How Appealing), Dennis Crouch discusses the argument in Thryv, anticipating “a split opinion with the majority affirming — holding that the no-appeal provision has no force in this particular case.”


  • At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf suggests that the newest case on the court’s merits docket, Carney v. Adams, a First Amendment challenge to a Delaware constitutional provision that limits the number of judges that can be affiliated with a particular political party, raises the question of whether “a state [can] act on the undeniable reality that judging is not completely separate from politics without leading the People to believe that … law is nothing other than politics.”
  • At the Human Rights At Home Blog, Margaret Drew deplores the court’s refusal Monday to review a case upholding a Kentucky law “that requires details of ultrasounds be given to women seeking abortions.”


In a recent hearing Judge Zuniga had made a motion on her own to determine if it is proper for Frank Carson to represent Walter Wells.

The District Attorney’s office has filed a motion to have a conflict declared and Frank Carson removed.

Here is that motion