Monthly Archives: November 2016

City of San Carlos doesn’t pay for Garbage Collection.

11/28/2016 Council Meeting agenda Item 10

Council member Matt Grocott continued to ask how much does the City pay for all of is garbage services. The spokesperson for Recology explained the it is included in the residential bills. That means they pay nothing for that service. Matt has been concerned with this question for a long time. None of the other four council members were concerned that the rate payers were paying for their services.


Leave a comment

Filed under San Mateo County News

Woodside High School attacker is charged with a crime.

Jade Armenio was attacked while sitting with other students during a break. There were several young men right there with her and did nothing to stop it. The attacker was a female student of WHS and is being charged in Juvenile Court. Why is she not being charged as an adult? Did the school or her parents not teach her to keep her hands to her self? If you disagree with someone you don’t assault them.

Todd Armenio. Jade father was quoted in PADP article as saying,  ” A lot of minorities at the school thought it was OK that someone COULDN’T express there views and First Amendment rights, and that they should get the crap beaten out of them.”

He also said “The family was looking for other schools for Jade to attend.”

The video that I watched was sickening, and not just because of the violent beating, but the casual actions of the male students. That was Disgusting behavior.


Leave a comment

Filed under San Mateo County News

It’s Illegal to file a false Police Report in San Mateo County. Why would Sheriff’s Office recommend prosecution?


San Mateo County Harbor Commissioner Sabrina Brennan

Thursday November 17, 2016 The Palo Alto Daily Post did a front page story titled “Official Investigated for assault.” by Emily Mibach. It’s not illegal to lie to a reporter.

Newly re-elected San Mateo County Harbor District Commissioner Sabrina Brennan with 145,710 votes is being accused by Brian Overfelt a board member of The Titans of Mavericks, and owner of The Old Princeton Landing Restaurant of assault.

If that were true Sabrina would have been arrested that night. The reason I say this is She was inside the restaurant with her wife and friends when two Sheriff Deputies walked up to her and informed her that “Brian wanted her to leave.” If I had been assaulted I would want her arrested, and I would have called the Sheriff’s Office to have her arrested not escorted out of my place of business. As it turns out when the 2 Sheriff Deputies realized that several people had the phones aimed at them they ceased with their mission of ‘Brian wants you to leave” and that was it for awhile.

I look forward to see the statement Mr. Overfelt has made to a Law Enforcement Officer. He told the Post she “threatened him, pushed him, and said she wanted to take me and my family down.” Again a reporter would ask Brian Overfelt, If that really did happen why did you ask the Sheriff Office just to ask her to leave, very strange.

It is no secret that a small group of political people would love to cause harm to Sabrina Brennan. She is at risk for living in an area that is patrolled by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff might consider referring this investigation to another agency, Carlos Bolanos is close to Supervisor Don Horsley aka, Leader of the Coup on July 12, 2016 which appointed him to Sheriff when it wasn’t on the agenda.

There was also the May 26, 2015 Harbor District Meeting where SSFPD Deputy Chief Mike Brosnan refused to enforce the law. Supervisor Don Horsley requested a body guard from the Sheriff’s Office for his safety. Supervisor Horsley and his 2 staff members Chris Hunter and Nicholas Calderon attended that dangerous meeting and didn’t say a word, after Citizen Access TV owner John Ullom informed the public he was ordered not to turn on his broadcasting device, which was removed from the window, until the meeting was over.

Who gave that order? Mike Brosnan.

December 17 2015-2

San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks hires Mike Brosnan to be the County’s first Human Trafficking Coordinator $140,000 first yr. Carlos Bolanos raised it to $280,000 the next year.

May 26, 2015 Harbor District Meeting

Michael Stogner warning December 15, 2015 the BOS of a Brady Officer Sgt. Jason Peardon in the SMCSO. 5:18 mark


Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos

Carlos Bolanos Integrity/Morales, vicious conduct Political Persecution. His Office submitted a recommendation to the District Attorneys Office to prosecute when they knew there was no evidence against Sabrina Brennan. WHY?

This should be reviewed by a Citizens Oversight Committee.

DA won’t press charges against harbor commissioner

Wagstaffe: video shows no evidence of crime

Half Moon Bay Article

1 Comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Attorney Generals Office, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Ullom, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Nicholas Calderon, Palo Alto Daily Post, Sabrina Brennan, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Harbor District, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Calls for NSA Director to be FIRED.

WASHINGTON – The heads of the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community have recommended to President Barack Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, be removed from his position, sources familiar with the matter said on Saturday

This story is not newsworthy in San Mateo County for some reason.

November 20, 2016 1:01 AM

Officials call for NSA head to be fired

Leadership role, performance cited

Washington Post

WASHINGTON – The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Barack Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Action has been delayed, some administration officials said, because relieving Rogers of his duties is tied to another controversial recommendation: to create separate chains of command at the NSA and the military’s cyberwarfare unit, a recommendation by Clapper and Carter that has been stalled because of other issues.

The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for director of national intelligence to replace Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The White House, Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. The NSA did not respond to requests for comment. Carter has concerns with Rogers’ performance, officials said. The driving force for Clapper, meanwhile, was the separation of leadership roles at the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, and his stance that the NSA should be headed by a civilian.

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on Saturday sent Clapper and Carter a letter defending Rogers. “I have been consistently impressed with his leadership and accomplishments,” said Nunes, who is also a member of Trump’s transition team. “His professionalism, expertise and deckplate leadership have been remarkable during an extremely challenging period for NSA. I know other members of Congress hold him in similarly high esteem.”


Leave a comment

Filed under San Mateo County News

Plane crashed into home in Moss Beach, San Mateo County.

A small plane has crashed into a house in Moss Beach this morning. The crash was reported at 11:18 a.m. in the 1000 block of Park Street just north of the Half Moon Bay Airport. There were 2 passengers on board a female passenger was ejected on impact and she has died. The San Mateo County Coroner’s office has identified 57-year-old Melissa Magee as the deceased person.

The plane was a single-engine Cessna 172

Leave a comment

Filed under San Mateo County News

Menlo Park Police don’t know how to make an arrest, according to DA Wagstaffe.

I don’t think for a moment that MPPD made any errors here. The easiest way to comprehend what is going on here is to think of Organized Crime. Those Who Matter control who gets charged.

David Bohannon II was arrested twice by the Menlo Park Police Department. The first time was for Domestic Violence assault and second time was for violation a restraining order.

Mr Bohannon was scheduled to appear in court yesterday at 8:30 AM Instead of a case number and a courtroom to appear in it said he was to report to the clerks office.In the 16 years or reporting about court cases I have never seen that before.  DA Wagstaffe refused to file charges.

San Mateo County might consider Stop granting Restraining Orders all together. It gives a false sense of safety to the Victims and their loved ones. Our DA doesn’t enforce them. Colin T. Smith a San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy at the time he was arrested for violating a Restraining Order. Our DA produced a case that caused a conviction to be reversed because of Prosecutorial Misconduct and then refused to retry it. There is NO commitment to enforce Restraining Orders in San Mateo County especially if you are one of the

Those Who Matter people.


Leave a comment

Filed under Adrienne Tissier, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Steve Wagstaffe

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Investigating Woodside High School Assault.

Last week a female was assaulted by another female right in front of many young men who did absolutely nothing to stop it. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office has opened a criminal investigation.

Leave a comment

Filed under San Mateo County News, Victim's Advocate

San Mateo County Supervisors are in the Real Estate Lending Business, Why?

$10,000,000 loan of Measure A money to be approved November 15, 2016

If you object to this contact your Supervisor and let them know. Measure A funds for Mid Pen housing (a financial donor for Yes on K) to purchase an apartment complex. Why don’t they just go to a lender. Is it because they get a better deal from our Supervisors.

MidPen Housing Corp 09/20/2016 donated $30,000.00 to the Yes on K Neighbors for Affordability and Quality of Life with Major Funding by Seton Medical Center.

San Mateo County Supervisors 

Agenda Item 34 Measure A: Resolution regarding acquisition of Atherton Court Apartments:


Inter-Departmental Correspondence Department of Housing

Date: Board Meeting Date: Special Notice / Hearing: Vote Required:

To: Honorable Board of Supervisors

October 6, 2016 November 15, 2016 None

  1. A)  Authorizing a loan to MidPen Housing of $5,883,211 for the acquisition of real property located at 3752-3770 Rolison Road, also known as Atherton Court, in Redwood City; and
  2. B)  Authorizing the Director of the Department of Housing, or the Director’s designee, to execute a loan agreement with MidPen Housing for the acquisition of Atherton Court in Redwood City, as approved by County Counsel.


On June 28, 2016 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to allocate $10 million in Measure A funding to establish a program to fund the acquisition and to preserve the affordability of apartment buildings rented at below-market rents in San Mateo County. The Board of Supervisors established the Affordable Rental Acquisition and Preservation Program (ARAPP) in recognition of the negative effects on low- and moderate-income households when the sale of existing apartment buildings results in rent increases and displacement.

In an effort to preserve existing, naturally occurring affordable housing, the San Mateo County Department of Housing has provided loan funds to two projects including a nine- unit project located at 168 Pacific Avenue in Pacifica acquired by MidPen Housing and a sixteen unit project located at 1110 Cypress in the City of San Mateo acquired by HIP Housing.

. . .

In early 2016, MidPen Housing, working in partnership with Abode Services, became aware that Atherton Court, a property located at 3752-3770 Rolison Road in Redwood City was being offered for sale. In order to preserve these 55 units of naturally-occurring affordable housing, MidPen Housing submitted an offer to purchase Atherton Court. MidPen Housing has worked closely with the San Mateo County Department of Housing to structure the acquisition and long term operation of Atherton Court to comply with the requirements of the ARAPP loan program.


MidPen Housing applied for funding under ARAPP to support the acquisition of Atherton Court in Redwood City. This property is made up of three buildings with a total of 55 apartments, including 53 studios and two one-bedroom apartments. In negotiating the purchase of this property, MidPen Housing and Abode Services, a service provider working with many of the existing tenants at Atherton Court, became aware of pending offers on the property in which the proposed buyers were seeking to purchase the property fully vacant, which would result in the displacement of 100% of the existing tenants. Because of the need to move quickly to provide funding for the purchase of Atherton Court, the Department of Housing has been working closely with MidPen Housing and has completed underwriting on the project.

Currently at least 47% of the households living at Atherton Court receive some type of rental assistance through either Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, HUD VASH Vouchers, or rental assistance from LifeMoves or from Abode Services. MidPen Housing proposes to acquire Atherton Court and complete all health and safety repairs, rent the current vacant units, and any units that become vacant, to tenants at or below 60% AMI. MidPen has also agreed to accept existing holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers to fill vacant units. Once MidPen has acquired Atherton Court, it plans to restructure the project financing and apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other permanent affordable housing financing. MidPen intends to conduct a comprehensive property needs assessment to identify all the deferred maintenance and property upgrades needed to create a healthy and safe living environment for the tenants and to extend the useful life of the property. MidPen will maintain a rent schedule that results in long term affordability for tenants at or below 80% AMI, in line with the requirements of the ARAPP. MidPen has agreed to set aside units targeted to households with incomes at or below 30% AMI and to offer housing options to San Mateo County clients including homeless and special needs populations.

As proposed, the acquisition and rehabilitation of Atherton Court meets all of the goals established by the Measure A-funded ARAPP loan program including preservation of naturally affordable rental housing, conversion of unsubsidized rental housing to long term, rent-restricted rental housing serving low, very-low, and special needs populations, and minimizing the displacement and potential homelessness of existing residents. Furthermore this project will improve the quality and condition of 55 units of existing rental housing by addressing deferred maintenance and obsolete systems. The project will also leverage other private and public funding including (a) owner’s equity, (b) other public funds, and (c) private and public debt.



RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, that

WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the negative effects on low- and moderate- income households caused by the sale of apartments with affordable, below-market rate rents, which can result in rent increases, displacement and potential homelessness; and

WHEREAS, the Board established a program, as part of the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF), to provide funding for the acquisition and preservation of apartment buildings rented at below-market rates in San Mateo County; and

WHEREAS, the Board allocated $10 million in Measure A funds to the Affordable Rental Acquisition and Preservation Program (ARAPP); and

WHEREAS, MidPen Housing has identified property located at 3752-3770 Rolison Road in Redwood City that currently provides fifty-five units of below-market rate rental housing, including housing for a number of tenants that receive rental assistance through Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, HUD VASH Vouchers, and rental assistance from LifeMoves or from Abode Services; and

WHEREAS, the property located at 3752-3770 Rolison Road in Redwood City is also known as Atherton Court and was at risk of being sold to a private sector investor, potentially displacing 100% of the existing residents; and

WHEREAS, MidPen Housing has requested $5,883,211 in funding from the San Mateo County ARAPP to acquire and to preserve the affordability of Atherton Court in Redwood City; and

WHEREAS, MidPen Housing will leverage the San Mateo County loan of $5,883,211 with other public and private sector funding for the acquisition of Atherton Court, with a total acquisition price of $17.1 million and will preserve fifty-five units of affordable rental housing in San Mateo County; and


Board of Supervisors hereby adopt this Resolution A) authorizing a loan to MidPen Housing of $5,883,211 for the acquisition of real property located at 3752-3770 Rolison Road, also known as Atherton Court in Redwood City; and B) authorizing the Director of the Department of Housing, or the Director’s designee, to execute a loan agreement with MidPen Housing for the acquisition of Atherton Court in Redwood City, as approved by County Counsel.


Leave a comment

Filed under Adrienne Tissier, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Sabrina Brennan, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, Tax Payer's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Congratulations Mr.Trump As Our New President

Last night was a historical night for america. Its over, Thank you Mr.Trump for offering your services to the public.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

San Mateo County Judge Joseph Bergeron continues to make inappropriate remarks in court after being Admonished.

This is not his first Admonishment.

November 1, 2016 in Courtroom 2B while setting a date for a court matter with attorney Bill Johnston, the attorney mentioned that date was his birthday, Judge Bergeron suggested/asked the members of the public if they would bake cupcakes for him, silence was the response. A young attractive female clerk entered the courtroom and stood close to the wall when Judge Bergeron made a remark about maybe getting her to make him something for his birthday. It seems that the recent Admonishment of our judge has FAILED.


The Commission on Judicial Performance ordered Judge Joseph E. Bergeron publicly admonished, pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) ofthe California Constitution and commission rule 115, as set forth in the following statement offacts and reasons found by the commission:


Judge Joseph E. Bergeron has been a judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court for 18 years. His current term began in January 2015.

The commission found that, despite having been warned by the court about his behavior, Judge Bergeron treated certain women at court inappropriately, and thereby failed to maintain high standards of conduct, to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he deals in an official capacity, as follows:

1. On August 28,2014, a courtroom clerk was assigned to work in Judge Bergeron’s courtroom. She was not regularly assigned to his courtroom. Judge Bergeron presided over two specially set criminal matters. After the first matter concluded, the clerk stood up to retrieve the file from the bench where Judge Bergeron was presiding. He asked the clerk whether she played baseball and, before she could respond, tossed a crumpled calendar at her, which hit her in the chest and fell to the floor. The clerk, who was taken aback, responded, “I guess not.” After the second matter concluded, the judge again tossed a crumpled calendar at the clerk, which hit her in the chest and fell to the floor. Judge Bergeron acknowledges that his actions made the clerk feel angry and uncomfortable and that they were discourteous and undignified.

2. On October 7,2014, a different courtroom clerk was assigned to work in Judge Bergeron’s department. She was not regularly assigned to his courtroom. She arrived at his courtroom at 8:00 a.m. Judge Bergeron had not yet arrived at court. A jury panel was scheduled to arrive at 9:00 a.m. or 9:15 a.m. At some point that morning, the judge telephoned the clerk’s station while the clerk was on the telephone regarding the jury. He left a voicemail message stating that he did not know who his clerk would be that day, that he would arrive at court between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., and that the jurors should not be sent to his courtroom. In his voicemail message, he asked the clerk to call him back, but because he did not leave a telephone number in his voicemail message, the clerk did not call him back. When Judge Bergeron arrived at court, he called the clerk’s supervisor from his chambers and complained about the clerk in a very stern, very loud voice, yelling words to the effect of, “She didn’t call back. She didn’t even pick up the message. You are putting people in here who can’t follow instructions.” The judge’s complaints about the clerk were so loud that she and others in the courtroom, but not jurors, heard them. Judge Bergeron acknowledges that he raised his voice and overreacted to the situation.

3. On December 18,2014, Judge Bergeron was presiding over the in-custody pretrial calendar in a fourth floor courtroom that was not his regular courtroom. A female deputy district attorney came in to the department’s conference room to pretry a criminal matter, joining another deputy district attorney, who had a cup of coffee with her. As the female deputy district attorney was leaving, Judge Bergeron asked her if her office was across the hall. When she said it was, the judge inquired about the availability of coffee there in a manner that conveyed that he would like her to bring him coffee; the facts about how he inquired, including the point at which he handed her his empty coffee mug, are in dispute. She responded by asking the judge, in a sarcastic manner intended to convey the impropriety of his request, what kind of coffee he would like and whether he would like cream and sugar. He responded, “I’ll make it easy for you” and said he would take his coffee black. As she was leaving,he said,”If I had cash [or money],I’d give you a tip.” She returned with his cup of coffee and said,again intending to convey with sarcasm the impropriety of his request, “Here is your coffee. Is there anything else I can do for you, Your Honor? Can I iron your shirts?” The judge remarked, “Well, at noon if it’s still raining outside I can give you my keys, and you can go get my car.” She responded, again sarcastically, “That may be a man’s job,” and left.


The commission found that the judge’s conduct violated canon 1 ofthe Code of Judicial Ethics (judges shall personally observe high standards of conduct and uphold the integrity of the judiciary), canon 2A (judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) and canon 3B(4) (judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom they deal in an official capacity).

Judge Bergeron’s conduct as described above was, at a minimum, improper action.

In determining to impose public discipline in this matter, the commission took into account the following aggravating factors:

First, in October 2013, less than one year before the August 2014 incident, Judge Bergeron was informed by the court’s presiding judge and the court executive officer that six female court employees had complained that he treated them in a rude, abrasive and condescending manner. They told him that it was imperative that he alter his behavior and prevent future complaints.

Second, in April 2014, four months before the August 2014 incident, Judge Bergeron received a private admonishment from the commission for embroilment and abuse of authority. An attorney in a matter pending before him had come to his courtroom and had an encounter with his clerk, the facts of which were disputed. Among other things, the clerk alleged that the attorney grabbed her arm. Judge Bergeron summoned the attorney to a proceeding to address the attorney’s actions and conducted that proceeding without having jurisdiction to do so, failed to advise the attorney of the nature ofthe proceeding or of his rights, relied on the unsworn testimony of a third party without affording the attorney the opportunity to be heard, questioned the attorney and asked him if he wanted to testify, and asserted that the attorney had committed a crime while the incident was still under investigation by law enforcement. The commission found that Judge Bergeron’s actions violated canon 1 (judges shall uphold the integrity of the judiciary and personally observe high standards of conduct) and canon 2A (judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary). Further, in December 2004, Judge Bergeron received an advisory letter for violating canon 3B(7)’s prohibition against ex parte communications by failing to place on the record prior to meeting with deliberating jurors a stipulation reflecting counsel’s consent to his meeting with jurors and for meeting with jurors after counsel objected to some of the judge’s prior meetings with jurors and stated that all communication with the jury should be made in open court.

Commission members Hon. Erica R. Yew; Anthony P. Capozzi, Esq.; Ms. Mary Lou Aranguren; Ms. Pattyl A. Kasparian; Hon. Thomas M. Maddock; Dr. Michael A. Moodian,; Nancy E. Nishimura, Esq.; Hon. Ignazio J. Ruvolo; Mr. Richard Simpson; Ms. Sandra Talcott; and Mr. Adam N. Torres voted to impose a public admonishment.

Dated: January 25, 2016

His attorney, Joseph McMonigle, said the judge realizes he made mistakes, but disagrees that his actions related to gender, according to the Associated Press.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County Superior Court, Uncategorized