NOTE: All of the content below and herein are not based upon unsupported opinion or speculation but are factual assessments and cited from within the In re Sodersten appellate court record.


In 1984, at the youthful age of 26, Mark Colin Sodersten was robbed of his life, hijacked, only to die in prison 22 years later. He would never again breath the fresh air of freedom; nor share or have the natural intimacy, love and sex or experience the scent and taste of a woman, or of various women; have the free choice of what delicious meal he would have on any particular day; enjoy the planned or spontaneous visit with family and friends or perhaps even raise a family; experience the joy and pain of fatherhood. Or overdose and die in Visalia but on his own free-will terms.

Beginning in 1984 and to continue thereafter, including but not limited to: Ronn Couillard, Phillip Cline, John Johnson, Cody Woods, John Gomes, Bill Lockyer, Robert R. Anderson, Mary Jo Graves, Julie A. Hokans and Robert Gezi, would all fight him judicially in his disadvantaged, impoverished and incarcerated state for decades at your taxpayer expense, keeping him conveniently store away in a human meat locker facility in order to ensure that this dead-man-walking, ultimately dies.

So whom are these third-world-mentality elitist, murderous bastards?

Named individuals from within the court record. More on these unconscionable, criminal, vile, bloodied-toxic pieces of fecal excrement below.

Here’s where a Brady violation, the preferred stealthy weapon and method of execution of choice by some prosecutors and police goes from bad to worse, to murderous.

Unfettered, unconscionable disregard and disdain for the constitution and for human life by these Brady subversives goes from “constitutionally-dimensional-error,” to violations on all fronts, to fraud, to actual fraud, to false imprisonment, to conspiracy to commit murder, to pre-meditated murder, to first degree murder and ultimately their white-collar-judicial-maintenance-cover-up, in having to deal with that pathetic prisoner’s grasping at straws for justice and freedom, controlling both sides of the criminal court process and proceedings, solely, wantonly and perpetually at unlimited and unchecked taxpayer expense. Yours.

Bearing in mind that, and as stated in the In re Sodersten Court’s opinion at least twice, the Tulare County DA knowing that Sodersten was wholly innocent, had initially sought the death penalty against him.

Are we clear on this: The DA pre-meditatedly, before the preliminary hearing where all accused US citizens are presumed innocent, sought to have this innocent man killed, which would have happened but for that jury.

“By information filed February 14, 1985, in Tulare County Superior Court case No. 22976, petitioner (Mark Collin Sodersten) was charged with the November 2, 1984, murder of Julie Wilson (Pen. Code, 2 § 187; count I). A knife use enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and special circumstance of murder during the attempted commission of rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) were further alleged as to count I. Petitioner was also charged with attempted rape (§§ 261, subd. (2), 664; count II) and arson of an inhabited structure or property (§ 451, subd. (b); [**578] count III). The prosecution sought the death penalty.”


Our review of the record in this case raises fundamental questions about the process used to convict Mark Sodersten. [***144] The trier of fact was asked to make a determination of guilt based on evidence that was incomplete because [*1236] of the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. This is not simple error in which the balance of the evidence can be evaluated and found to support no other reasonable conclusion but that reached by the jury. The foreclosed evidence in this case strikes directly at the issue of guilt or innocence. This is also not a case where the evidence of guilt is such that, while the issue of a fair trial is called into question, the issue of factual innocence is not. Moreover, the prosecution here asked for the penalty of death. Only the verdict of a jury deprived of exculpatory evidence fortuitously avoided that outcome. This case raises the one issue that is the most feared aspect of our system--that an innocent man might be convicted. While that consequence unfortunately does occur in the most protective justice system ever devised by man, it cannot be allowed to occur as a result of a dereliction of their duty by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities sworn to protect that system. And, it should not be cloaked in silence if scrutiny by the justice system is to stand [***145] as a reminder of that duty.

We do not know--and need not determine--whether petitioner killed Julie Wilson. It is not his burden to establish either that he is factually innocent or that the jury necessarily would have acquitted him had it known of the suppressed evidence. (See Kyles, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 453.) "Rather, the question is whether 'the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.' [Citation.]" (Strickler v. Greene, supra, 527 U.S. at p. 290.) Petitioner has carried his burden. Nicole and Lester Williams were of paramount importance to the prosecution's case, and the outcome of trial depended to a very large extent on their credibility and the reliability of their testimony. (See People v. Kasim, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382.) We do know that if petitioner were alive, he would be entitled to a new trial to determine if the presumption of innocence would prevail in the face of all the evidence, including that which was not disclosed. We also know that if petitioner did not commit this most horrible murder, [***146] then someone else did who remains free of the consequences of his crime.

 [**626]  (16) In sum, we conclude that, had the four tape recordings been disclosed to the defense, there is a reasonable probability of a different result. Because of the nature and quality of the exculpatory evidence that was suppressed here, "the factual underpinnings upon which the jury relied to make its critical decisions were seriously eroded" (People v. Kasim, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1382), and petitioner was denied a fair trial." Emphasis added.

Firstly, based upon the material facts of the case and appellate record, let’s not Harvard-law, candy-coat the precise and clear intended (criminal) actions and conduct of the prosecutor on the following points:

1. “We do know that if petitioner were alive, he would be entitled to a new trial … .” Stop. At this precise moment and textual point in the court’s opinion, Sodersten was again, a free man. Afforded and essentially granted new trial. The court constitutionally and legally placed him (and the parties) back to his period of presumed innocence at or before the preliminary hearing stage (bearing in mind that he was already dead). It conclusively and affirmatively wiped away, having invalidated the prosecution’s dark, sinister and evil murder plot and exposed them all to the constitution’s bright light. And, to take it a logical, procedural and technical step forward, a new trial meant – no trial, in the criminal court having exposed them all to likely civil tortious liability and likely criminal proceedings.

2. “… because [*1236] of the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.”

No. There is a big difference between “failure” and refusal. The prosecutor knew at all times that he would refuse to disclose the relevant and critical exculpatory evidence and information. He intentionally violated and defied the mandate and historical record of Brady.

3. “… it cannot be allowed to occur as a result of a dereliction of their duty by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities … .”

No. The prosecutors, investigative and law enforcement officers subverted their duties, having concertedly chosen to subvert the rule of law, constitution and justice system. Dereliction can be vaguely caused by, or be the result of either deliberate, accidental, unintentional or negligent conduct: take your pick. It was not a dereliction of duty to pre-plan, conspire, coordinate, suppress and conceal evidence at all times and seek the death of an innocent person. Dereliction of duty may apply to an individual, a single person in control of something, an independent function but for a group of people to act in a concerted, malicious like-minded unison, that is a mob, or a lynch-mob.

4. “We do not know--and need not determine--whether petitioner killed Julie Wilson.” In 2006, it was a moot point. This appellate court was not tasked to try-anew the case against Sodersten, to overlook the Brady-fraud and rubber stamp the conviction, embrace the decades long prosecutorial subversion and ultimately do a final pile on; keep an apparent innocent man locked up but this time, literally: throw the key away. Nope.

5. “… "the factual underpinnings upon which the jury relied to make its critical decisions were seriously eroded, … ."

No. The relevant and material “factual underpinnings” subvertedly, were non-existent, suppressed and concealed from the beginning. In order for there to be an erosion, an element (the exculpatory evidence) of that which is to erode had to have been present in its timely, whole, complete, pristine and apparent physical state. The prosecutor presented nothing from which to erode. What was before the jury was a cheap-theatrical-dog-and-pony-carnival-act; a Salem-styled-witch-hunt where the accused woman is standing in the gallows hands and feet bound, with a noose around her neck as the charges are being read. The jury miraculously did not buy what the DA was pushing: a remote, hands-free execution.

For the prosecution and law enforcement to have sought the death penalty, falsely and criminally, knowing at all times that Sodersten was wholly innocent, is to have committed concerted or conspired pre-meditated murder. Then, for the State’s Attorney General (AG), Assistant and Deputy AG’s also knowing at all times that Sodersten was wholly innocent, having perpetuated that fraud, joined in that criminal conspiracy, associating them all with that initial or original fraud, actual-fraud or Brady-fraud in order to keep Sodersten falsely, unlawfully and unconstitutionally incarcerated for the remainder of his life because, the jury had returned a verdict of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The AG and staff did for decades what the court had stated must not occur: they maintained and perpetuated their “cloak of silence” in having criminally breached their duties to Sodersten, the justice system, the rule of law and the Constitution.

The following are the In re Sodersten governmental-elitist subversives: from the trial court  to the appeals court, includes but is not limited to: Tulare County DA prosecutors Ronn Couillard and Phillip Cline, DA investigator John Johnson, Detective Cody Woods and Sergeant John Gomes; State AG, Bill Lockyer, Chief Assistant AG, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant AG, Mary Jo Graves, Deputy AGs, Julie A. Hokans and Robert Gezi, hereinafter also referred to jointly in relation to In re Sodersten as, “subversives” and/or “governmental-elitists,” and/or plainly “murderous bastards.”

But isn’t that what all these governmental elitist, subversive attorneys want? A convenient way to win a prosecution case? And to simultaneously silence their victims? Absolutely.

With a fool-proof, solidly, proven track record since 1963, yes. Even if it means killing someone remotely or slowly over time.

The other side of the general or typical statutes of limitations (SOL) sword as a defense is, what is the SOL regarding the commission and prosecution of an unconstitutional “color of law” crime? Or what is the SOL regarding the commission and prosecution of an unconstitutional “color of law” civil action? To both queries, there is none.

This is why some governmental attorneys having engaged in Brady-fraud are so scared of what can happen to them that, they will gladly, immediately and wholeheartedly, premeditatedly commit murder, as already set forth herein regarding: Milke and Sodersten, or falsely imprison them to include Bundy and Valladares to suppress and conceal their subversionary acts, like sweeping that which is an unsightly nuisance under the carpet.

So who’s going to criminally charge and prosecute them? Their golf-buddy-boss? College buddy? Fellow parishioner from church? Or fellow democrat/republican?

These subversive, governmental elitist attorney/prosecutors cannot and will not self-correct. Look at the supposed best of the best in our government, our Federal Justice Office/Administration in the Bundy case: Myhre, Schiess and Ahmed down to the State local trial court level prosecutors back on up to the AGs in appellate cases. Pathetic. No, criminally and shamefully pathetic.


(Bearing in mind that along with Federal Penal Codes, the Federal courts can and do look to State laws and codes as well.)

No one is allowed to:

1. Openly have someone put to death. Except them.

2. Hold or imprison someone against their will. Except them.

3. Suppress, conceal, fabricate evidence or falsely state and commit perjury. Except them.

4. Be an accessory to a felonious crime, to conceal that crime, protect or cover for someone whom has committed that crime. Except them.

5. Do the above for personal motives or gain at taxpayer expense. Except them.

The patterns of pre-meditated first degree murder against Milke and Sodersten under a so-called Brady: error, misconduct or violation as the method or modus operandi, are definitely penal code violations which the end result does warrant a prosecutable death penalty or at least life imprisonment against these governmental employee subversives. And what’s the statute of limitations on pre-meditated first degree murder? There is none.

How about the false imprisonment of Milke (AZ), Sodersten, Bundy (NV) and Valladares?

Under California Penal code sections 236 – 237 these perpetrating governmental attorneys and co-conspirators having effected such unlawful imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud and deceit are culpable and liable, and should be punished by imprisonment for the maximum, compounded, consecutive and aggravated term(s) in the state prison.

Under Penal Code Section 135 concealing evidence by the prosecution to be used in a court proceedings and/or concealing evidence from the defense in their investigation with the intent to prevent it or its content from being produced, is also a crime punishable by imprisonment.

To further include the misuse, abuse and/or misappropriation of public funds, a form of embezzlement for the unauthorized use of taxpayer monies and public resources.

Hmm, how bout that: governmental attorneys themselves committing the very crimes they prosecute.

This is America, right? We shall see.


Four minutes for you... 22 years for Mark.


DISCLAIMER: The key and core element, word, phrase or term, from and within this portion of the above opinion is: subversion. That is: “… subversion of the justice system.”