CA Republican Activist George Yang's Bizarre and Terrifying Criminal Charges
Details revealed in two hearings contradict what Yang told friends before a gag order was issued
I’m going to start this piece by stating that I don’t know George Yang personally and I have nothing against him. I also, despite some accusations to the contrary, do not enjoy writing negatively about Republican activists or officeholders. What I do care about is promoting conservative principles, winning elections, and making sure that people don’t use their position to abuse or harm others (especially women). So if I have good reason to believe someone’s behavior or baggage will harm those goals, I don’t have a problem bringing that information to light - especially if that person or their allies are intentionally misleading either members of the public or party delegates. I believe that glossing over bad behavior or attempting to hide extremely negative facts only serves to hurt the party in the long run, and looking the other way while innocent people are collateral damage is immoral. That is what is happening in this instance, and that is why I have such an interest in this case.
Now that that’s out of the way, here’s what’s happening. George Yang is a Bay Area Republican who has run for elective office on multiple occasions; most recently he was a candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2022. He did not make the top two, so his candidacy ended after the 2022 primary.
I was told in late August that Yang had been arrested for some kind of assault during a burglary and was being held without bond in Alameda County, a county with a DA who’s notorious for coddling criminals, so that was odd. I did not see the social media posts or emails in question, but was told that allegedly the charge had to do with the burglary of an apartment Yang and his wife had once lived in, that the burglary occurred 10 years ago, that Yang’s sister-in-law had been attacked during the burglary, and something about fingerprints or DNA that could be explained by his having lived there but that Yang was being framed for political reasons.
Having worked in criminal and civil courtrooms as a court stenographer for nearly two decades, this piqued my interest and I started looking into it.
There was one hearing date where the audio courtroom never went live so I don’t know what happened there. The next hearing was September 21, a bond hearing, and after tweeting at the Alameda Courts to turn on the audio the livestream was suddenly active.
As I mentioned, I was a court stenographer in a prior life, so I took down the hearing as it occurred. The transcript I produced is NOT an official transcript and while I made every effort to be verbatim I cannot guarantee that because making an audio recording of the hearing is prohibited.
When I get a minute I will come back into this post and do the TL;DR bullet points, but at this point I’ve been working for 12 hours today and still have a few events to attend and cover, and I want to get the information out there for people to make up their own minds.
The following is the completely unofficial transcript of the hearing held on September 21.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KUBO: I believe that one of the main --
THE COURT: And I read all the letters of support, and to be honest with you --
MR. KUBO: Yes.
THE COURT: I don't -- that means he's a respected member of the community. And on the other hand, Humphrey tells me to presume the truth of the charges, and those completely outweigh letters of support. I read them. I don't need more information along those grounds.
MR. KUBO: All right. What I’d like the Court to look at is specifically -- whether it's for bail or whether it's for release on his own recognizance, the Court has to --
THE COURT: Are these your additional comments?
MR. KUBO: Yes.
THE COURT: That's what you said in your papers. I read them, Mr. Kobo
MR. KUBO: They have to assume the facts are evident and the presumption great, right?
THE COURT: That's for no bail.
MR. KUBO: I think for any bail the court still has to do that rubric. And then also, the second part of that is to make sure that the victim is not -- that the defendant -- there’s no substantial likelihood that the person would carry out a threat; if released --
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. KUBO: -- there’s no substantial likelihood that the person’s release would result in great bodily harm to others. So those two elements, in addition to finding that the facts are evident and the presumption great. I want to address first, the facts are evident and the presumption great.
THE COURT: All those fingerprints and DNA is wrong?
MR. KUBO: So, Mr. Yang lived in that unit for some time with his wife. In fact, the pictures that I have received yesterday, which is why it's not [inaudible] --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. KUBO: -- include photographs of mattresses that he was -- that he slept on, include a bag of ties that Mr. Yang had not seen until we discussed it.
THE COURT: I'm gonna interrupt for a moment, because I’ve been thinking about this, because I read that he lived there, right. There is evidence. I think the -- I don't recall if the Friday the 13th mask had DNA evidence on it, but there was other evidence that the police recovered that night that appeared to be left by the assailant that then came back with fingerprints and DNA from your client.
MR. KUBO: Well, that's a loose interpretation of the facts, but yes. So, what happened was that there was -- in 2013 they ran everything. Nothing came back, okay. So, there's nothing, no print match, nothing. His prints have been on file from before that, his full prints, because he is a resident alien and as such had been fingerprinted fully, from 2005, I believe. So, it would have came back to him if those prints were [inaudible].
The prints that were recovered off of the mask were partial prints. What I don’t have is the full discovery yet, so I do not know how many other partial prints were part of that match that was done on a computer. It’s an algorithm. What they did was somehow they narrowed it down to Mr. Yang —
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KUBO: -- then they staked him out, got the DNA, and matched it up. The DNA is not -- I think that when all is said and done, the court's going to realize, or a trier of fact will realize, that the DNA, whether it is his or not, right, is because of either the way that the evidence was collected -- I have photographs here that show that that bag that supposedly has all his DNA in it is in three different locations in these photographs, before they were taken in, before they were then separated, before they were then swabbed for DNA.
I do have other photographs showing that the officers that went in put on their blue gloves and started grabbing things and moving around and doing everything else. There’s an easy argument here for cross-contamination, especially when he lived there, there’s a mattress of him living there, there's boxes of his stuff still there. There's also a zip tie that supposedly was found in one of those bags, found in another bedroom closet on the floor also tied up, which was found on the bed.
There’s a shoe and a glove. The glove doesn't even match him. It's a large glove. But there's also a photograph in here that shows that there's a large ski glove downstairs that wasn't collected that looks like it matches the wool large glove that supposedly the victim grabbed and walked outside and put outside on the front porch, along with the shoe that she says came off of the assailant.
The victim’s story, there's three different versions that I’ve gone through so far. One version is she came home, started vacuuming the living room floor, then went upstairs to the master bedroom floor, and then is grabbed from behind, she falls down into the floor reaches around, grabs his crotch for some reason --
THE COURT: Bites him.
MR. KUBO: Well, the first version she grabs his crotch. That's the way he runs off. The second version is she gets pushed on the bed, then she falls to her knees and then she grabs his crotch and then she tries to -- as he's coming forward after she's grabbing his crotch, she's trying to get his mask. And then, as she's doing that they then slightly struggle and then they run away. The third version is they fight for two or three minutes and then he runs away.
The bag is found on the left side of the bed. There's a taser that is found on the right-side floor of the bed. The taser is one of the few things that was swabbed for DNA in 2013. That comes back non-conclusive, and not matching him.
THE COURT: Not matching anybody.
MR. KUBO: Correct. And that’s for the taser.
THE COURT: I’m cutting you off. No, I am cutting you off, Mr. Kubo.
MR. KUBO: Let me say one more thing.
THE COURT: No, no.
MR. KUBO: There's a note in the bag.
THE COURT: No. So, the fact that the victim has perhaps different versions of what happened – I’m not finding beyond reasonable doubt a darn thing today. And someone -- I mean, you may be saying none of this happened, it's all made up.
MR. KUBO: No, no.
THE COURT: Okay. Somebody in her bedroom vacuuming at the end of a long day at work gets attacked by somebody wearing a mask, I can believe she wouldn't get all of the details straight. I can believe memory would come back in an unusual way. And I’m not getting into those beats right now. No.
So, here's what I’m looking at. I am looking at Humphrey and I am looking at the -- you know, you may want to fight whether or not your client's guilty. We're not having that fight today.
What I am trying to decide is that second prong that you brought up at the outset, which is, can I find by clear and convincing evidence that there's a significant risk of great bodily injury if I release him? Right?
MR. KUBO: Right.
THE COURT: That's what my hearing is today. I am also required regardless of your view of your cross contamination, or the wrong-sized glove -- interesting parallel --
MR. KUBO: Can I just say one thing?
THE COURT: No.
MR. KUBO: There’s a note.
THE COURT: I'm going to rule your way. Do you want to pull defeat from the jaws of victory? Please continue your discussion.
MR. KUBO: If you're saying that I’m not saying anything else.
THE COURT: Okay.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So may I be heard on this thing, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Of course you may be heard on this thing, Mr. [District Attorney].
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your Honor, an event like this that is out of a horror movie and seems fantastical but also terrifying -- the Court identified an individual coming home and being attacked in her home unawares. The evidence recovered at the scene indicates that her ability to fight this individual off, and counsel’s repeated reference to grabbing this individual's crotch, I think, should indicate that the desperation to attack potentially a vulnerable point and try to scare off her attacker was successful here.
This individual took off, perhaps indicative of somebody who is not have a criminal history, of somebody who was thwarted when their vulnerable attacker [sic] fought back. The fact that this was clear -- the evidence recovered the scene is clearly indicative that this was going to escalate to a sexual assault –
THE COURT: A hundred percent.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: -- if he was able to incapacitate her with a taser. What nightmare would have unfolded, thankfully we do not have before us. What we do have is a description of her attacker wearing a Halloween mask. And setting aside every potential argument for contamination -- which the history and the investigation disputes almost every piece of what mister -- what counsel is claiming, we have fingerprints on this mask that was recovered by the police in -- from a neighbor's trash can.
The White case would guide this court. This individual cannot be trusted released to our community. We also have his statement and his fantastical claim that this is some political conspiracy against him and denies any involvement in this.
However, he is -- as pointed out by counsel, has connections and ties outside of the United States, particularly to a country that does not have an extradition treaty to the United States, and the likelihood of his flight, regardless of his connections to the community, I don't think can be simply discounted because he has a family and children. He had both of those things, and the DNA and fingerprint evidence ties him to this horrific crime, and that certainly didn't dissuade him from trying to rape his sister-in-law.
Your Honor, the People would urge this court consider the serious threat to public safety that Mr. Yang poses. The fact that he was thankfully unsuccessful, due to the victim fighting him off here, I don't think should allow this Court to disregard the potential threat both to the victim and to other females that he may have this fantastic ideation of committing this type of assault against. I don't think there are less restrictive means that could be imposed there. If I’m unsuccessful in convincing the Court, I certainly would want to hear what – or have an opportunity to be heard on less restrictive means.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I think that certainly a surrender of the passport would be required. I think travel outside -- I would ask for house arrest. I don't think that there's anything – and with GPS monitoring. I think a four-way search clause would be important here, obviously, you know, checks [inaudible] would be already in place in this matter.
THE COURT: It is.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I don't know, and it would seem that with the family relationship here, though, that there might be some efforts of third-party intimidation or other levels of intimidation that Mr. Yang may have either on his behalf or – excuse me, either personally engage in or have others engage in on his behalf.
But I would hope that additional protective order – or, excuse me, additional conditions of the protective order are no contact with any of the family of the victim as well. So that would be the victim’s husband, who is the brother of the defendant here.
THE COURT: I’ll get to some of those details later, thanks Mr. [District Attorney].
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I simply can’t. This is one where the threat to the community, particularly to the victim here that suffered this attack in a sanctity of your home when you're committing – or engaged in the most mundane of tasks, vacuuming. The access that was gained is certainly indicative of somebody who had knowledge of this residence, had knowledge of this individual, had knowledge of her routine, had access to the home. The very things that counsel’s arguing against his involvement here actually go to show that it would be this type of individual who would commit this offense. The fact that he either hasn’t been caught in other sexual assaults or hasn't committed other crimes I don't think should be the determining factor here, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks. The one letter that actually I did pay attention to -- extra attention; I read all of them -- was the letter from Jane Doe of last week. And the nature of this case -- I’m struggling with a nature of this case, with the charges. I have made rulings on bail motions where I believe the person in custody is a significant risk of continuing to rob people at gunpoint, continuing to engage in random gunfire. Clearly, I have been comfortable that no less restrictive means are available.
This person -- and Mr. [District Attorney] and I often think along the same lines. All I have in front of me is this almost insane attack. It seems clear -- again, I presume the truth of the charges for purposes of a bail motion, and that's why I cut you off, Mr. Kubo.
But the only -- the aspect around this case that I found that I wrestled with at some length was, who would do this to a sister-in-law? Then I still need to find by clear and convincing evidence there's a substantial risk of great bodily injury. I know of no other similar assaults accused against Mr. Yang, charges or allegations against Mr. Yang. I’ve got 10 years since this happened with no allegations of improper conduct, and that is the fact that is driving me.
There's a parallel to -- this case has a parallel I think with Yanetdeck more than White. And the White there are clear threats, there's a kidnapping, there is an extreme danger, there was hearing -- and you are correct, Mr. [District Attorney], about the nature of this offense, of what if. What if instead of grabbing the victim, he tased the victim and incapacitated her? There this -- we could be dealing with. A home invasion homicide. A home invasion rape. I don't know. But luckily, we aren't.
We've got 10 years in my mind of conduct that -- law-abiding, apparently pillar of society-type conduct. And it's based upon that I think I cannot find by clearing convincing evidence there's a significant risk of harm to the community such as that would allow -- require me to keep him in custody at no bail. I intend to impose significant restrictions on the defendant’s freedom. And also, Mr. Kubo, you don't say what bail your client can afford?
MR. KUBO: Currently, he's being supported by his wife. He's doing a lot of volunteer work for a political party. He's been very vigorously involved in a number of different resolutions that have passed, and most of that's all volunteer work. He does get a stipend here and there periodically. So, I would say essentially at this point, based upon what's happened, he’s eviscerated as far as work. And so -- any public sort of [inaudible]. I’d say he has no money at this point, except for what his wife can contribute.
THE COURT: Okay, how much bail can you make?
MR. KUBO: Can I take a second here?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. KUBO: I spoke to Mr. Yang, and I believe based upon his view of the finances at this point in time, he's saying about maybe $100,000.
THE COURT: Okay. I will set bail at $100,000. I will set conditions of bail. He must be on electronic monitoring and house arrest. He may not leave the home except to come to court or meet with his lawyer. At all. He may have no contact with any members of the victim’s family. He may not communicate with the victim or the victim's family through any third party, except for Mr. Kubo in carrying out his responsibilities as his counsel.
He must abide by the criminal protective order. He must surrender his passport to Mr. Kubo, who shall keep it in trust for the Court. Where does your client live? What town?
MR. KUBO: Menlo Park, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that San Mateo County?
MR. KUBO: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Yes. So just to be clear, he may also not leave San Mateo County except to come to court. Madam Clerk, we’re good on all of those conditions?
CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. KUBO: Your Honor, the exceptions for me and contact would also include any of my inspectors or agents or private investigators?
THE COURT: Yes, under your direction. Mr. Kubo, we need electronic monitoring progress report.
[Discussion between counsel and court regarding the next court date.]
THE COURT: How about Thursday, September 28 or Friday, September 29?
[Further discussion regarding the next court date.]
THE COURT: I’m imposing the four-way search clause. Mr. Kubo can explain that to Mr. Yang.
[Inaudible discussion between counsel and court.]
THE COURT: I’m going to impose another term when we pick a new date.
MR. KUBO: Okay, 29th.
THE COURT: It’s a five-way search clause. Police may also search any electronic communication device under Mr. Yang’s control and he must provide passwords necessary for that search. Further, Madam Clerk, Mr. Yang may not communicate with anyone other than his spouse and Mr. Kubo, and Mr. Kubo’s agents, and he may not comment on any form of social media regarding this case or the victim. This is a full gag order as against Mr. Yang. The only exception with his spouse is, he has the spousal privilege; he can talk whatever he wants. But it’s a full gag order and a five-way search clause to make sure we can check. Go ahead.
MR. KUBO: Can he talk to his kids about it?
THE COURT: No. They’re too young. Can’t talk about the case. He can say Dad was in jail for a while and now Dad’s out.
MR. KUBO: I just want to be clear. You said no communication about the case on social media, but you also said do not communicate with any other person other than his spouse and [inaudible]
THE COURT: Both. Social media, any other means, and then also —
MR. KUBO: But he can talk to his kids?
THE COURT: Not about the case. Also, ordered to be personally present at all court dates. No 977.
In the hearing held September 29, which was an electronic monitoring progress report, Yang’s attorney reported that he was in possession of Yang’s passport. He then made two very narrow requests for modification of the pre-trial release order, which the judge quickly and vehemently denied, at one point saying that he didn’t trust Yang . The judge also expressed that he might wish to reconsider his pre-trial release order.
The following is a very rough and unofficial transcript of the proceedings, which I listened to on audio livestream.
MR. KUBO: I do have a couple of requests but outside of that -- I want to make sure that that's all in order.
THE COURT: It’s in order.
MR. KUBO: Great. So, Mr. Yang has a father that was recently diagnosed with dementia, and he lives in San Bruno. He was wondering -- based on the Court’s orders before, he could not leave his home. He was wondering if he would be allowed to visit his father in San Bruno? His father does go to medical appointments which have [inaudible] in terms of the recent diagnosis.
THE COURT: Mr. [District Attorney], what are your thoughts about that?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Strong objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Me too. No.
MR. KUBO: Okay. And then, lastly, he also sits as a board member on different boards that he is planning on withdrawing from due to what's happening in this case, and [inaudible] have to give them a basis for that. Of course, per the [inaudible] he could only discuss the case with either myself or spouse. So, can he make a reference to this case in those letters?
THE COURT: No.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't trust him.
MR. KUBO: That's all I ask. We have a plea date set for 10/20 in Department 702.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. [District Attorney]?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You know we had a lengthy and discussion about this, and the -- my view was governed in no small part by the yanetdeck case. I -- I mispronounce that every time -- case. Has your office had any contact with the victim here?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor. [inaudible] communication with her.
THE COURT: So, this is a case I’ve ruminated about, just after making the ruling I made last time, and I’m not doing anything different today, but it struck me that -- and I’m not asking for argument for either side today, but I want -- I am open to a possible Motion to Reconsider by the District Attorney's office. I don't know that the – I can – the law grants me the right to reconsider rulings I made. I'm not worried about that.
But the thought that came to my mind was, Humphrey talks about a significant – clear and convincing evidence of a significant risk of great bodily injury -- injury, whatever the exact terminology is. The thought that struck my mind as I thought about this case – and I appreciate, Mr. Kubo, that your client is fully complying with all my orders, and the fact that you are asking for very narrow modifications means you and he are taking those orders seriously. That's all to the good.
But what struck me was this -- the very unusual nature of this case, and the fact that the – and I know you contest his guilt, absolutely. Humphrey ties your hands on that. I presume the charges are true, but I am absolutely cognizant that you contest his guilt here, 100 percent. You made that clear.
So, the victim in this case, in the -- in the time since the assault inside her home, was living life traumatized. The identity of her brother-in-law as the assailant -- in my mind, common sense -- the prosecution at some point, if necessary, the identity of her brother-in-law as the assailant would re-traumatize her, I believe -- just common sense tells me this -- in a completely different way and a new way. And the fact that many times over the years he since then visited her home, where this attack took place, and I could anticipate her thinking about those, replaying those family gatherings in her mind, and now that re-traumatizes her. There may be -- and this is not spelled out, and I don't want argument today, Mr. Kubo. I'm keeping an open mind. I'm not changing anything. But the thought comes to mind that his freedom outside of a custodial setting could be causing her additional trauma in a way that is different from other victims of crimes.
And implied in the Humphrey decision is, when people get out of custody and there's a victim of a violent crime, those people are going to be upset about that person being out on the street. That's – that’s common. This -- the circumstances of this case are so uncommon that the emotional trauma might be completely different and more significant here. So, I was -- I thought about this case all last weekend -- not all last weekend, but for a long time, about, what does Mr. Yang being out of custody, what effect does that have on the victim in this crime? Not -- you know, he's -- he's fully complying with my orders. He's not going to knock on that door. He's not going to reach out to her on the phone. He's not going to text her. He's not going to have some third party threaten her. I'm completely confident that she is physically safe and that he will not do anything to further traumatize her intentionally. And I'm talking about the unintentional trauma and just because of the crazy unusual nature of these charges that thought came to my mind.
I'm not making any rulings. I'm not modifying anything. I'm informing both counsel that this case is different. And if the prosecution were to bring a Motion to Modify OR Release based on that, that is something I would have an open mind for. And, you know, Mr. Kubo, I would absolutely listen to everything you would say on that front. So I just – I’m -- Mr. Yang’s here. He's done everything I ordered.
Mr. Kubo, if sometime down the road the prosecution makes a motion, maybe it's after PX. Maybe it's sooner than that. I don't know. The fact that he is fully complying with every order, everything within his control is something that would weigh heavily in his favor on any subsequent motion. So, I’m just putting it out there. I was thinking about this case quite a bit.
There was further discussion about when Yang would be back in court, and that date is October 10.