Valladares’ Sac case (2016): “Brady! Brady! Brady!”
Subversion of constitutional mandates, duties, obligations and against one’s entitled rights cannot stand, is indefensible and overcomeable – AT ANY TIME.
First, regarding the “State,” what and whom it is. The Brady court cited previous Supreme Court decisions (Mooney v. Holohan (1935), 294 U. S. 103, 112; Pyle v. Kansas (1942), 317 U. S. 213, 215-216 and Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U.S. 264, 269) in having pointed out that it’s lower court judicial faults, injustices and unconstitutionalities have come from the “State.” But precisely, from actors or authorities within the State.
The State of course when it comes to the justice system are none other than governmental attorneys to further include law enforcement officers, but does the State’s authorities personnel stop there? No, it does not. Anyone and everyone employed, funded and contracted on behalf of the State (state, county and city employees, officers and administrators) are the State.
Everyone of the State, whom endeavors to cause an unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional conviction by whatever means, does so undermining and subverting the rule of law, the justice system and the constitution under color of law. They are subversives.
So what happens when the State provides a defense counsel as with the Public Defender or private practice attorney contracted with the State, whom also engages in Brady like misconduct or fraud? Whom also works with the prosecution-side of the State towards a conviction providing no defense for the accused.
Should or must Brady apply to them as well?
See, in doing so, the hard-yes, invalidates and voids that entire proceeding, having made a mockery of the justice system, rule of law and constitution.
The following is a synopsis of the legal points raised in Valladares’ complaint which these attorney defendants cannot defend against.
Valladares makes it perfectly clear in his complaint that he is not against all attorneys. In fact, there are two attorneys specifically referenced in his complaint whereby he makes a positive comparison on how those two attorneys working in the private sector, conducted themselves professionally, having gone above and beyond their ethical duties without compensation, in having engaged with him during his incarceration regarding an ongoing, simultaneously at that time, separate and unrelated Federal litigation where Valladares had also worked in that case, defending himself from his jail cell and did prevail in.
As summarized in these webpages and from within Valladares’ current court documents, at all times leading to his plea entry, to include events having taken place even before his arrest, he went through the criminal court process and proceedings having sustained Brady violations (actual fraud) by the prosecution/DDA (Deputy District Attorney); without constitutionally mandated defensive representation having led to his involuntary, uninformed, unlawful and unconstitutional guilty plea (no-contest), having yielded to the DDA and his defense attorney’s Stipulated Plea Agreement.
He then encountered continued or perpetuated Brady-fraud obstruction, interference, lies and deceit by three additional governmental attorneys within the Sacramento County Conflict Criminal Defenders Office (CCDO) in his having attempted to withdraw that plea, having experienced their “Cloak of Silence” to protect the DDA and ex-defense attorney.
It’s like a systemic pattern of subversion, malfeasance, corruption and fraud with these governmental-elitist-attorneys.
From a technical, procedural, lawful and civil-tortious standpoint, his constitutional rights were concertedly subverted by individuals from within these governmental offices of the “State,” (or Sacramento County) as the responsible entity as defined by the Brady court.
And as such, in part he has asserted in his current litigation that, those proceedings were unconstitutional and therefore void, subject to being set-aside or vacated – AT ANY TIME.
A. PROBLEM NUMBER ONE FOR THE STATE: Brady violations by the prosecution/DDA.
Yes, in Valladares’ underlying criminal court case the DDA suppressed and concealed documentary exculpatory evidence, to include also having suppressed and concealed her e-mail and telephone communication records and documentation between the Sacramento Police Detective, that DDA, an outside Title company corporate attorney, a Title company Officer, witnesses pertaining to that transaction and Valladares’ privately retained attorney all directly related to that Brady documentary evidence, that Valladares had not committed any crime against a particular alleged victim in that transaction.
All of that suppressed and concealed documentation together with the disclosed documentation and witnesses would have shown a conflict with the Police Detective’s own reporting which was fabricated to appear that a crime had been committed. In other words the Detective “created a victim to a manufactured crime.”
All of which would have been favorable to Valladares’ defense had it all been provided in the discovery production.
In fact, the DDA had refused to communicate with or respond to Valladares’ private attorney right through to Valladares’ plea entry, whom was also representing that same person whom without his knowledge or agreement, would later become this supposed or staged alleged victim.
Bearing in mind that, the DDA’s refusal to communicate with Valladares’ attorney confirms her willful intent to hide her Brady violations in real time and that this supposed victim was not an actual victim at all. This would have been additional and subsequent favorable exculpatory information connected or relating back to her original Brady violation.
So when this DDA produced the DA’s discovery to Valladares’ defense attorney, before the preliminary hearing, without this exculpatory evidence and information, it was at this point in the proceedings that the proceedings became actively unconstitutional, null and void, a sham.
And yes, for later commentary under this Brady-fraud case and litigation, there was a fraudulent and criminal monetary diversion by the DDA and the Detective of over forty thousand ($40,000) that had been seized by that detective, funds from an undisputedly and uncontested perfectly legal transaction.
B. PROBLEM NUMBER TWO FOR THE STATE - Brady violation by defense counsel?: Valladares did not have constitutionally mandated defensive representation.
Every person accused of a crime and due to his/her incarceration is disadvantaged from being able to retain private counsel, is constitutionally mandated to have court appointed defensive representation either, directly through a Public Defender or, as in Valladares’ case, indirectly through private counsel (a conflict appointment) under governmental contract separate and apart from the Public Defenders Office, both of which are provided and funded by the State.
And as such, that defense counsel is constitutionally mandated and ethically bound to function and conduct himself as in any other fiduciary, contractual attorney-client relationship, no less in any standards. To provide any and documentation to that client in a timely expeditious manner, to investigate, discuss, counsel and formulate a defensive strategy on behalf of his client to the prosecution and/or before the court, at and during all stages of the proceedings.
So what happens when your own, court appointed attorney suppresses and conceals documentary evidence and key witnesses from you, causing you to make an uninformed and unsupported decision and plea agreement, under his direct, coercive-fictional-threats? Are those equally or consistent prosecutorial-misconduct styled Brady violations? Being carried out by essentially an agent for the prosecution? Where both: the governmental prosecuting attorney and the governmental defense attorney are both working towards the same goal – a conviction?
Because suppression and concealment of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution is as established, violative constitutional misconduct, then suppression and concealment of exculpatory evidence by the governmental defense attorney is also unconstitutional, hence, a dual subversion and compounded violations of constitutionally mandated duties and respect for one’s due process rights, rendering that entire proceeding invalid or void.
Valladares’ so-called defense attorney or, agent of and for the State or, sell-out or, abandoner intentionally and continually suppressed and concealed the DA discovery documentation from Valladares having consisted of over 500 pages containing, including in part (excluding what the DDA had already suppressed and concealed), references to those same outside transactionally related direct material witnesses such as the Title company corporate attorney, corporate Title officer and citizen witnesses whom all of which would (not could), would have been favorable and essential to Valladares’ defense.
Over several face to face meetings with Valladares, this deceiving attorney did not disclose that he had in his possession this massive discovery production/file let alone that he had received anything from the DA. Nor did he discuss with or inquiry of Valladares anything defensive having pertained to or within that massive DA discovery file.
For Valladares’ own attorney to intentionally and continually engage in and commit Brady-styled fraud affecting and eviscerating his constitutional due process rights and decision making, then leading him to plead guilty was unconscionable.
But it gets worse for this attorney (for later commentary), where in the judicial record during a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), in addressing Valladares’ concerns and objections to entering a plea without documentation or information pertaining to the DDA and his attorneys plea agreement, the court had instructed the attorney to provide any and all documentation in his possession to Valladares, which he defiantly refused to do, where such defiance and refusal was also a matter made within the court record.
Having kept silent before the court that he had already received that 500 page discovery file from the DA, having kept that fact and that file from Valladares at all times thereafter, affirmatively and ultimately concludes that he did nothing defensive for Valladares.
Big, big problem for that attorney is his having engaged in: Constitutionally violative conduct, actual fraud, suppression and concealment of documentation, conflict and breach of the highest fiduciary interest and attorney-client relationship, coercion to enter that plea, client-abandonment and positive misconduct. As more full set forth below.
C. PROBLEM NUMBER THREE FOR THE STATE - Brady violation by the CCDO attorneys ?: “Cloak of silence,” (In re Sodersten), actual fraud and deceit.
The court grants the Pro Per (In Propia Persona) litigant Constitutional rights, with subpoena powers to include a State funded and provided Investigator. Just as any other private-practice attorney would have at his disposal. The CCDO is then mandated to provide legal administrative assistance and resources, not counseling to those inmates representing themselves.
These three CCDO attorneys were supposed to assist Valladares in his case after he removed/fired the defense attorney from his case in order to withdraw that plea yet, they all worked to protect both: the DDA and the ex-defense attorney by having interfered, frustrated and obstructed Valladares' efforts and rights.
What these corrupt and deceitful attorneys told Valladares and by their conduct was basically: Yes, you have the right do a particular thing but its complicated and you will not understand any of how to achieve it. Yes, you can try to withdraw your plea but you cannot conduct any discovery or issue subpoenas (for motion preparation) until your plea is withdrawn. Yes, you have rights, but you can’t use them, well, not right now, but eventually, maybe, only if your plea is withdrawn.
These are the lies and conundrum they put an incarcerated person through, in order to frustrate, delay and obstruct that effort and process. Direct contradictions, intentional misdirection and obstruction. Actual fraud and deceit.
Why? Because they know that the Pro Per inmate is going after their overall governmental attorney peers. Let a convicted inmate succeed in having his plea withdrawn? Proving that the DA and ex-defense attorney had failed in making a conviction stick? Allowing a pathway to expose constitutional violations? And in Valladares’ case, to expose Brady violations? And allow a pathway to a civil lawsuit?
No way. They could not and would not let that happen.
And yes, they were fully aware of the DDA’s Brady violations before, Valladares even knew what a Brady violation was.
These three governmental attorneys were in essence restrainers. Corrupt subversives.
See, any private practice criminal defense attorney in attempting to have his client’s plea withdrawn, would for the most part, investigate the facts, marshal all available evidence, witnesses, information and issue subpoenas if necessary. Conduct case law research in assembling the proper and correct motion to put before the court together with new, again: NEW (as in newly discovered), facts, information, evidence, witnesses with declarations and exhibits that may not have been presented pre-plea, in order to convince and persuade the Judge, overcoming the DA’s original charging contention that the plea should/must be withdraw, setting aside and vacating the conviction/judgment/sentence.
By the CCDO attorneys having told Valladares, your plea must be withdrawn first (the cart before the horse analogy), without doing any of the above, was to have him go into court with nothing, bare-assed-naked, unprepared and looking stupid, with no new facts, evidence, witnesses, grounds or arguments and simply wander in and in a two minute, one spoken paragraph sentence, ask the judge to withdraw his plea. This was/is their method of setting one up for utter failure, a forthcoming self-inflicted disaster: actually a crippling-sabotage.
And obviously, based upon this pre-planned and subversively coordinated scenario, no judge would permit the withdrawal of a plea, thereafter, preserving that plea entry and conviction.
Valladares not only had to fight the DDA, his ex-attorney along with dealing with that concurrent Federal case, he now had to fight three more governmental attorneys whom all would not allow him to do what the court and the Constitution entitled him to do: all of what any private practice attorney would do.
Just like the States AGs in In re Sodersten, the CCDO attorneys in part with their cloak of silence, saw and endeavored to lie, deceive, frustrate, misdirect, impede and obstruct Valladares by preventing him from withdrawing his plea. They further continued and preserved the DDA’s initial Brady violations by further having violated his constitutional rights to represent himself.
Valladares had sustained a chronic pattern of multiple Brady-fraud violations of his due process rights by defendants: The State’s DDA, the State’s appointed defensive attorney and the State’s CCDO, all governmental elitist attorneys.
HOW THE INDEFENSIBLE IS LITIGATED AND THE PROBLEM FOR ALL DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS: (Lets follow the bouncing ball.)
Firstly, realistically and in the real world, no attorney is going to voluntarily and timely admit that he committed actual fraud against his client or against a third party. That would be instant voluntary disbarment, immediately self-imposed career ending, financial devastation and professional suicide. Immediate exposure to massive civil litigation. Divorce, if married, bankruptcy and maybe criminal charges, prosecution and imprisonment. Voluntary self-infliction of this sort is absolutely unheard of.
Here’s what attorneys (yes, in general) don’t want you to know and for now let’s focus on California and its Sacramento-case governmental attorneys: A Brady violation is in-defensively unconstitutional as jointly it already is (A. Unconstitutional, and B Indefensible.), coinciding with, and is actionable under including but not limited to, two civil statutes dealing with actual fraud: A. Cal Civ Code § 1572 and B. Cal Civ Code § 340.6. (a)(3).
A. Cal Civ Code § 1572 Actual fraud defined:
Actual fraud, within the meaning of this chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
5. Any other act fitted to deceive. Emphasis added.
The key word is “or” to include or expand to “deceive another party thereto…,” identifying that deceiving person as a third party or non-fiduciary as in “Third Party Liability,” a party not directly thereto or bound to that contract but whom also directly and adversely affects and infects that contractual relationship.
In the instant case: The fiduciary trust or contract is the highly and solemn entrusted fiduciary attorney client relationship between Valladares and his defense attorney, especially under Brady in the criminal court setting. The third parties are all of the named governmental attorneys to include the police detective as defendants.
“Under California law, the right to sue a third party for participating in a fiduciary's breach of trust is limited to situations in which the third party was acting for personal gain or in furtherance of his or her own financial advantage. (Pierce v. Lyman, 1 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1103-1106, citing Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 39, 46-48.)” City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 445. Emphasis added.
There is the due process mandated duty or obligation by the, or all prosecutors that they will turn over to the defense counsel of an accused person, all “favorable” exculpatory evidence, witnesses and informtion. A willful refusal to comply with Brady is to violate Cal Civ Code § 1572 – Actual Fraud.
Then, once Brady (the suppression and concealment acts) and Cal Civ Code § 1572 (where suppression and concealment is actual fraud) are violated and in play, Cal Civ Code § 340.6 kicks in. This section is the inescapable tight noose around every attorney’s neck because it leads ultimately to disbarment and other unpleasant consequences.
This is where the definitive and absolute high bar of actual fraud is made seasonably applicable to all culpable and liable attorneys, and what § 340.6 means, its definition and application of actual fraud in civil litigation.
B. Cal Civ Code § 340.6. (a) An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, (Specifically relating to Cal Civ Code § 1572) … .
Except for a claim for which the plaintiff is required to establish his or her factual innocence, in no event shall the time for commencement of legal action exceed four years except that the period shall be tolled during the time that any of the following exist:
(1) … .
(2) … .
(3) The attorney willfully conceals the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission when such facts are known to the attorney, … . Emphasis added.
Supportive authorities include but are not limited to: Fraudulent concealment is a "species" of actual fraud. (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 868; Civil Code Section 1707.); (See Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 608-09 (holding that actual fraud includes the "intentional concealment of a material fact."); Barder v. McClung (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 692, 697 ("The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact, is actual fraud."); see also Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 282, 291 ("Active concealment [*33] or suppression of facts by a nonfiduciary 'is the equivalent of a false representation, i.e., actual fraud.'" (citing 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 678)); Koch v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 537, 541 (holding that suppression of material facts in a real property transaction constitutes actual fraud).)
Bearing in mind that a “non-fiduciary” is a third party person or group, with separate personal individual or joint motivations or gain.
If an attorney willfully conceals facts constituting the wrongful act or omission (of actual fraud) when such facts are known to the attorney and such concealment is carried out, but kept hidden and silent for say, five or ten years, any action against that attorney is tolled during that entire time.
What we have here is a two-stage act of malfeasance: First is the actual fraud itself and then second, the concealment and suppression of that actually fraudulent act over time, however long it remains litigiously dormant. Time, lying in wait is a double edged sword.
So the waiting game begins. The longer the waiting game continues the longer the wait is allowed to file a complaint against that attorney.
Example: where an attorney draws up a will for a client, that client dies twenty years later and the heirs, beneficiaries or executor discover an intentional actual fraudulent act by that attorney, he is at that time decades later liable and maybe criminally prosecutable.
See, for a governmental attorney or law enforcement officer to act contrary to and outside of the mandates of one’s public office and against their Constitutional mandates, duties and obligations (subversively and militantly), wholly at taxpayer expense, where the government is not authorized to fund any such unconstitutional acts in having violated Brady IS, acting for one’s or joint concerted personal gain or in furtherance of his, her or their own financial advantage(s). And to do so, is to frustrate, impede and/or destroy the contractual/fiduciary attorney-client relationship, all actionable under Cal Civ Code § 1572 and Cal Civ Code § 340.6. (a)(3).
Now let’s take a look at that Brady section again harmoniously in conjunction with California law:
“(a) Suppression (Cal Civ Code § 1572 (Actual fraud) (3) to further include (1), (3) (4) and (5)) by the prosecution (and all (governmental) attorneys involved under Cal Civ Code § 340.6. (a)(3)) of evidence favorable (favortability which is NOT determined by the prosecution) to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt (at the preliminary stage) or to punishment (through all stages leading to conviction, judgment and sentencing), irrespective (making no difference) of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Pp. 86-88.” Brady: Syllabus, 1963. Emphasis added.
How about that, under including but not limited to Cal Civ Code § 1572, Cal Civ Code § 340.6. (a)(3), Brady and In re Sodersten the typical Statute of Limitations do not apply or are on hold, in cases for years or decades until that attorney’s actual fraud is to be litigated, either civilly or criminally.
Lastly, what you have to ask yourself is, to what extreme would a governmental attorney or attorneys in general go to save their neck(s)? To avoid being litigated against under, including but not limited to, these two hard California statutes along with Brady? Park someone in prison under false and fabricated charges? Charge them with false, fabricated and extreme charges to include that which leads to the death penalty? To hope and work towards their malfeasance that their victim never gets out or sees the inside of a courtroom as a civil-plaintiff? That their secret prisoner dies in prison with their secret crime? Enlist the assistance of other governmental and private practice attorney peers to help keep that/those prisoner(s) bound?
All of the above is what happened to Sodersten, Milke in Arizona, Bundy defendants in Nevada and Valladares.
Again, every governmental attorney, law enforcement officer, employee or official whom commits a constitutional violation or breach is a subversive unfit for public office and must be immediately removed from that office.
We shall see.