Monthly Archives: September 2018

Why I started San Mateo County News

Why I started http://www.sanmateocountynews.com. To inform the residents of important stories that affect the average citizen who lives in the County. To eliminate Prosecutorial Misconduct, Law Enforcement Misconduct. I didn’t want to be in the News and Information business, or to get scoops on big stories. Here is an example I shared this information with all Medias covering SMC, with the hope that some of the reporters/editors would cover the James (Jim) McGee (a former Redwood City Police Officer and member of the SWAT TEAM himself) Domestic Violence Arrest after a 17 hour standoff with San Mateo County Sheriff Office Swat TEAM on August 9, 2018.

I live in Monterey County now, I attended the Court Sept. 27, 2018. None of the people below did. Welcome to San Mateo County.

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Renee Batti,Sara Gaiser,Melanie Ehrenkranz,anna@smdailyjournal.com,Sergio Quintana,Jay Curran,Isaura Ochoa,NBCKNTV,John Myers,John Ullom,Carina Woudenberg,Geoff Glaub,Deborah Petersen,Maya Lau,Nguyen, Vicky (NBCUniversal),Nious, Kevin (NBCUniversal),Dan Noyes,Clay Lambert,Dave Boyce,Dave Price,Emily Mibach,Erin Stone,Demian Bulwa,Barbara Wood,Allison Wisk,Kia,Nadine SebaiHide
  • Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
    To:Michael Stogner
    Sep 24 at 3:57 PM

    No, there is a single charge of 148 PC.

    From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 3:57 PM
    To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
    Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Jim McGee case

    Is there a DV charge?

    On Monday, September 24, 2018, 2:18:00 PM PDT, Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org> wrote:

    Yes, our office has filed one count of 148(a)(1) PC.   I do not see a docket number in the court’s Odyssey system yet.

    Karen

    From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]

    Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 2:00 PM
    To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
    Subject: Re: RE: RE: Jim McGee case

    Hello Karen.

    Just checking is there a case number yet? and have Any Charges been file as of today?

    Thank You

    Michael

    On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 8:51:59 AM PDT, Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org> wrote:

    The next court date for McGee is in two weeks, not one.  It’s 9/27.

    From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 8:31 AM
    To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
    Subject: Re: RE: Jim McGee case

    Thank You

    On Wednesday, September 12, 2018, 8:23:47 AM PDT, Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org> wrote:

    Not yet.  The DDA was waiting for some information that she did not receive in time for today’s court date.  Apparently the DDA and defense attorney have agreed that they will postpone the McGee’s first appearance for one week.

    Karen

    From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]

    Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 8:06 AM
    To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
    Subject: Jim McGee case

    Good morning Karen.

    Did your office file and charges against him?

    Thank You

    Michael G. Stogner

    San Mateo County News.com













Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Attorney Generals Office, Attorney Josh Bentley, Board of Supervisors, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Palo Alto Daily Post, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ramsey Saad R.I.P., Redwood City Police Department, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, San Mateo Daily Journal, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo – Kavanaugh Appointment.

Anna Eshoo
Eerily reminiscent of the Ford-Kavanaugh matter, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo had brought yet another allegation of sexual misconduct by an official forward, one in which republican sheriff Greg Munks and his underboss, undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, had been caught and detained by the FBI, in a human trafficking investigation -the two were found at an illegal Las Vegas (Clark County) brothel, one trafficking underaged indentured sex slaves and controlled substances -Ecstasy. They were there as customers.

At the time, Eshoo had called for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to sanction Munks and Bolanos, but they had refused to address the matter. In fact, current San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe had gone so far as to excuse the duo’s behavior, consoling Munks, telling him it would soon be yesterday’s news, and saying he was “a man of integrity, such that it would not in any fashion affect his office’s ability to enforce the laws of the state of California”. On its face, such a comment could only be characterized as laughable, had the persons and conduct involved not been so serious. Not to mention DA Wagstaffe’s apparent dismissive attitude towards the abuse of women, by “Those Who Matter.”

MunksVegas4 copy

Munks went on to issue a press release, saying he had thought he had been going to a legitimate business, only to find out “It was not”, with Bolanos, to answer questions about the matter. A strategy which had worked, with the media/press and the board of supervisors not pursuing the matter further.

Congresswoman Eshoo is to be commended. I only hope her efforts, in the Kavanaugh matter, won’t be met with a similar fate -speaking truth to power is often an uphill battle.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Adrienne Tissier, Board of Supervisors, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Heinz Puschendorf, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Jordan Boyd, Karen Guidotti, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Please Withdraw Endorsement of Carlos Bolanos for Sheriff 2018, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Munks, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Few reports against police upheld, You can interchange Judges, District Attorneys,Prosecutors,CPS,Probation Officials & Those Who Matter.

 

This is a very good article, Thank You LATIMES,

My recommendation is to stop reporting privately and before you report a Corrupt San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy and the alleged crimes his has committed against his children, his ex wife, and the Court (photos to CPS and filed with the family law court), The purpose to harm the mother, First of all you would be Stupid to report this crime to San Mateo County Sheriff Office under the leadership of Carlos Bolanos. He has a history of protecting Corrupt Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Andrew Armando is a current example. So before you report to the A.G. or the Feds you must cover your bases and give the District Attorney’s Office a chance to prove that they are opposed to a Sheriff Deputy filing false documents to CPS and the Court. You would also hope they would acknowledge the obvious conflict of Interest the current girlfriend of the Deputy works for the DA’s Office. After you go twice to report the criminal acts of (your ex) the SMC Sheriff Deputy, The DA finally takes the complaint they hate that you force them to do what they have sworn an Oath to do. Don’t be surprised when they recommend that YOU take a polygraph test and you agree to it and pass with flying colors. What did that have to do with the Deputy committing Felonies you might ask? Nothing, but if the DA was more interested in attacking the single mother/victim then prosecuting the Sheriff Deputy. Now after passing that test you would hope the DA invited the SMC Sheriff Deputy to take the same polygraph test, they choose not to and closed the criminal investigation. This lack of action only emboldens the dishonest Sheriff Deputy to once again report child abuse to the Redwood City Police Department where he has several personal friends.

San Mateo County Residents can thank the entire District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office for this.

9/23/2018 LATIMES

Few reports against police upheld

Across California, complaints of officer misconduct are often rejected and inquiries kept from public view.

By James Queally

Angry that she had been falsely accused of a drug crime, Tatiana Lopez filed a complaint against a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who had arrested her on suspicion of possessing methamphetamine.

But when Lopez met with a sheriff’s lieutenant to discuss her accusation, he urged her to drop her complaint, she said.

After a preliminary investigation, the Sheriff’s Department ruled the deputy had done nothing wrong, without giving her any explanation.

It would take years of legal battles before a judge exonerated Lopez and a new internal investigation led the department to fire the deputy for lying about her arrest.

Lopez is one of nearly 200,000 members of the public who filed a complaint against California law enforcement officers in the last decade. Her initial complaint ended the way most did — with police rejecting it without saying why.

A Times analysis of complaint data reported to the California Department of Justice shows law enforcement agencies across the state upheld 8.4% of complaints filed by members of the public from 2008 to 2017.

In a state with some of the strictest police privacy laws in the country, those who make complaints against officers are entitled to learn little more than whether their allegations were found to be true or not. They are given no other explanation about how a final decision was reached, what was done to investigate their allegation or whether an officer was disciplined.

A bill that cleared the state Legislature last month would begin to address the issue by opening up records from internal investigations into shootings by police officers and other major force incidents, as well as cases where officers were found to have committed sexual assault or lied on duty. Gov. Jerry Brown has not said whether he will sign the measure, Senate Bill 1421.

But even if he does, records from the vast majority of internal affairs investigations would remain secret.

The Times’ analysis of complaint data found several of California’s largest police agencies sustain complaints at a lower rate than the state average, including the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles and Oakland police departments.

Police officials argue that a large number of the complaints they receive are frivolous, filed by people they have arrested or others who have an ax to grind. Some said the proliferation of body-worn cameras among California police agencies has helped disprove a larger number of allegations about interactions between police and the public.

In Los Angeles, police said the low rate of upheld complaints was due, in part, to the department’s commitment to accepting a wide array of allegations. The LAPD received 25,006 complaints from the public in the last decade, according to state records. Officials concluded there was evidence proving 1,360, about 5.4%.

“We take every single complaint on the planet,” said Josh Rubenstein, the LAPD’s chief spokesman. “When you open yourself up to that wide a spectrum, you are going to get a high number of complaints that are not legitimate.”

Cmdr. Michael Hyams, who heads the LAPD’s Internal Affairs division, said that by examining even the flimsiest of allegations, the department has proved it will heavily scrutinize its own officers. He noted there has been a dramatic drop in citizen complaints against LAPD officers. State records show the number fell by roughly 67% from 2008 to 2017.

At the Sheriff’s Department, internal investigators upheld only 69 of 15,661 complaints made by members of the public in the last decade, less than 1%, according to figures the agency reported to the state.

Nicole Nishida, a department spokeswoman, said the agency had under-reported the number of sustained complaints to the state. By the department’s own accounting, roughly 8% of all public complaints were upheld from 2004 to 2016, she said.

Peter Bibring, director of police practices for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, said that a low rate of sustained complaints does not necessarily mean a department is doing a poor job of policing itself, but the lack of information disclosed about those investigations is a significant problem.

“If their complaint is rejected, they are not told why,” he said. “That lack of transparency prevents the public from having any faith that the process is working.”

California law requires police departments to report the number of citizen complaints and the outcome to the state’s Department of Justice, but no agency audits the data to ensure the figures are accurate. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency is not required by law to conduct audits and hasn’t been given funding to do so. The state has gathered such data since 1981 and expanded the database to include information about racial profiling complaints in 2016.

Wayne Fisher, a former deputy attorney general in New Jersey who helped set the state’s guidelines for monitoring internal affairs complaints, said it was pointless to collect the data without checking to see whether some agencies are rejecting an abnormally large number of complaints and deserve more scrutiny.

“It acts as a pointer system to certain other areas that are screaming for analysis,” said Fisher, who now leads the Rutgers University Policing Institute.

Francine Tournour, a civilian watchdog for the Sacramento Police Department, agreed. Police departments need to be more open about their investigations into complaints about officers if they want the public to trust the results, she said.

“Part of this is customer service. Part of this is the relationship building,” she said. “If you have a process where people make complaints … and there’s no feeling that the complaint was taken seriously, you may see people stop bringing things to the department.”

In Sacramento, a city with a population of nearly 500,000, police reported only 18 complaints to the Department of Justice last year. Det. Eddie Macaulay, a department spokesman, said the agency did not include an additional 301 informal “inquiries,” a label used when department officials believe it was clear that an accusation did not amount to a violation of policy or crime. Had the department included those inquiries in its reporting to the state, its rate of sustained complaints would have plummeted.

Tournour, who heads the Sacramento Office of Public Safety Accountability, warned that handling such complaints informally can distort the history of documented allegations against individual officers — and a department as a whole.

In 2016, Jasmine Abuslin accused more than a dozen Oakland police officers of having sex with her, sometimes in exchange for information about prostitution raids. Her accusations — including that the misconduct began when she was underage — sparked a scandal that made national headlines and led to the firing and prosecution of several officers.

During her first contact with an internal affairs investigator, Abuslin said the police official seemed uninterested in her allegations.

“I felt like she wasn’t taking me seriously,” she said.

She also accused internal affairs investigators of threatening her for coming forward and of allowing her to delete text messages that could have proven her allegations.

Members of the public have filed 16,345 complaints of misconduct against Oakland police officers in the last decade, according to the state data. Only 1,073 of those complaints, roughly 6.5%, were sustained.

Oakland police did not respond to requests for comment.

In recent years, police agencies in California have had to report more details about citizen complaints and their outcomes, including how many they decided were false, involved conduct that did not amount to a policy violation or could not be proved or disproved. Last year, police agencies statewide concluded that 28% of complaints were false.

In Fresno, Chief Jerry Dyer said he has sought more thorough investigations and urged his internal affairs department to revisit investigations where it could not prove or disprove a misconduct allegation.

Fresno has one of the highest rates of sustained complaints among California’s largest cities. The department upheld 325 out of 1,332 citizen complaints in the last decade, roughly 24%, according to the state data. Last year, the agency reported it couldn’t prove or disprove less than 6% of complaints made by the public, compared with the statewide average of 25%.

The push for more conclusive results better serves the community, said Dyer, adding that he supports releasing more information about the way complaints are reviewed. The current process, which sees citizens simply receive a form letter announcing a complaint’s disposition, “raises a lot of concerns on the part of those voicing the complaint,” Dyer added, though he said he does not support making individual officer disciplinary records public.

For Lopez, the shortcomings of the internal investigation into her complaint about L.A. County sheriff’s deputies destroyed her trust in law enforcement.

The Downey woman was a college student with no criminal record in 2009 when three deputies trained their guns on her in a gas station parking lot. Deputy Francisco Enriquez alleged he found several bags of methamphetamine in his cruiser after she rode in its back seat. He said they fell out of her pocket.

Lopez’s attorney, Thomas Beck, later obtained sheriff’s radio transmissions proving Lopez was never in Enriquez’s car.

Lopez said the ordeal had a lasting effect.

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Redwood City Police Department, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Did San Mateo County Adult Protective Services, Protect & Advocate Properly for Firoz Jaffer? Elder Abuse Victim.

 

October 15, 2017 3:56AM Firoz Jaffer called 911 to report an assault on him and his grandchildren by his son Zainali Jaffer. Hillsborough Police responded within minutes to the home at 1026 Lancaster Lane, Hillsborough, California. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Firoz Jaffer was Beaten when he tried to stop his son from sexually assaulted his 3 year old son in the back yard. Here is a description from a press release by the District Attorney’s Office about one of the Court Dates.

Peo. v. Zainali Jaffer (2-16-88), Hillsborough Police Department 664- 288.7(B)/288(B)(1)/245(A)(4)/273A(A)-Two Counts/243(B) Misdemeanor October 15, 2017; Defendant Is 29 Year Old Hillsborough Resident And Former CEO Of Mobile Advertising Company “Vungle”; At 3:56AM Sunday Morning Police Were Dispatched To Defendant’s Home In 1000 Block Of Lancaster Road In Hillsborough; They Were Met By Defendant’s Father Who Was Cut And Bleeding In Face From Being Beaten By Defendant; Father Directed Police To Backyard Where Officers Found The Naked Defendant On Top Of And Sexually Assaulting His Three Year Old Son Who Was Screaming; Officers Approached And Defendant Started Choking The Victim With His Legs; The Defendant Ignored Orders To Stop And Kept Choking The Child; Officers Had To Use Taser To Control The Defendant; The Defendant Continued To Resist The Officers And Spat At The Sergeant; The Officers Determined That Defendant Had Also Punched And Struck His One Year Old Daughter As Well As The Three Year Old Son And Beat His Father When The Father Tried To Intervene; 17-NF-012415-A (DDA Sharon K. Cho) 

-The case was set in SSF Felony Court, Dept. 9, Judge Stephanie G. Garratt, for the preliminary hearing. The defense written section 1050 motion to continue the hearing in order to conduct further investigation and preparation and based on a new attorney added to the defense was granted without prosecution objection. The case was continued to January 31, 2018 9:00 for the preliminary hearing with a 90 minute estimate. This will be the second setting of the preliminary hearing date since the initial felony arraignment on October 17, 2017. The defendant’s father failed to appear in court despite the fact he was served with a subpoena. The defense attorney represented the father returned to his home in England. At the request of the prosecution, the court issued a $25,000 bench warrant for the witness’s arrest. The defendant remains out of custody on $300,000 bail bond (posted on October 26, 2017). The defense attorney is Daniel Olmos (retained). 

My question is did APS offer and provide all the services needed for him to be safe and have an advocate to explain the legal process for example “It is Illegal for you to leave the Country after you have been served a subpoena.” You are the key witness besides the 3 police officers and the body camera videos etc.

Michael Callagy should Audit San Mateo County on this case, including CPS.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Attorney Generals Office, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, CPS, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Superior Court, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe fails to Mention Motion to Dismiss the Entire Zain Jaffer case.

The Zain Jaffer case was dismissed July 2, 2018. That is a fact.

Prosecutions are implicitly limited to district attorneys per California Penal Code § 739, which describes the “duty” of district attorneys to file charges after a judge finds grounds that an offense has been committed. A judge did find that in the Zain Jaffer case.

San Mateo County should Audit this case and determine if the legal process was followed. He was arrested for Attempted Murder of his 3 year old son, why did that disappear so fast. Did CPS & APS follow protocol?

 

 

The decision to dismiss the entire Zain Jaffer case must have been made before this Media Update of Cases of Interest was sent out. What date was it decided to dismiss the case? What date was the motion to dismiss prepared? What date was the motion to dismiss filed with the court? The reason I ask these questions is that Zain Jaffer read a prepared statement in court written before hand by a public relations firm, so they all knew this was going to happen.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM 

TO: MEDIA MEMBERS 

FROM: STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

Media Notes For Monday, July 2, 2018 

CASES OF INTEREST IN COURT TODAY 

Peo. v. Zainali Jaffer (2-16-88), Hillsborough Police Department 664- 288.7(B)/288(B)(1)/245(A)(4)/273A(A)-Two Counts/243(B) Misdemeanor October 15, 2017; Defendant Is 29 Year Old Hillsborough Resident And Former CEO Of Mobile Advertising Company “Vungle”; At 3:56AM Sunday Morning Police Were Dispatched To Defendant’s Home In 1000 Block Of Lancaster Road In Hillsborough; They Were Met By Defendant’s Father Who Was Cut And Bleeding In Face From Being Beaten By Defendant; Father Directed Police To Backyard Where Officers Found The Naked Defendant On Top Of And Sexually Assaulting His Three Year Old Son Who Was Screaming; Officers Approached And Defendant Started Choking The Victim With His Legs; The Defendant Ignored Orders To Stop And Kept Choking The Child; Officers Had To Use Taser To Control The Defendant; The Defendant Continued To Resist The Officers And Spat At The Sergeant; The Officers Determined That Defendant Had Also Punched And Struck His One Year Old Daughter As Well As The Three Year Old Son And Beat His Father When The Father Tried To Intervene; 17-NF-012415-A (DDA Sharon K. Cho)
-The case is set at 1:30 in Dept. 9, Criminal Presiding Judge Stephanie G. Garratt, for the pretrial conference. The case is set on August 27, 2018 8:30 for jury trial. This is the third setting of the jury trial date since the superior court arraignment on February 15, 2018. The defendant is out of custody on $300,000 bail bond (posted on October 26, 2017). The defense attorney is Daniel Olmos (retained) and Patrick Clancey (retained). 

Here are the charges minus the Attempted Murder Charge the Hillsborough Police called for.

COUNT 1: PC664/PC288.7(b) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Attempted Oral Copulation With Child 10 Years Old Or Younger in violation of PC664/PC288.7(b), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER being a person 18 years of age or older, did attempt to engage in oral copulation with John Doe (3 years old), a child who was 10 years of age or younger. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c). 

COUNT 2: PC288(b)(1) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Forcible Lewd Act Upon Child in violation of PC288(b)(1), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon or with the body or certain parts or members thereof of John Doe (3 years old), a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of the said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER or the said child, by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c) NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require the court to order you to submit to a blood test for evidence of antibodies to the probable causative agent of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Penal Code Section 1202.1. 

COUNT 3: PC245(a)(4) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Assault By Means Likely To Produce Great Bodily Injury in violation of PC245(a)(4), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully commit an assault on Firoz Jaffer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. 

COUNT 4: PC273A(a) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, John Doe (3 years old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered. 

COUNT 5: PC273A(a) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, Jane Doe (1 year old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered. 

COUNT 6: PC243(b) (Misdemeanor) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Battery Upon A Peace Officer in violation of PC243(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully use force or violence upon the person of Peter Gould when said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER, knew or reasonably should have known that said person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1054.5(b), the People are hereby informally requesting that defendant(s) and his or her attorney provide to the People the discovery required by Penal Code Section 1054.3. This is a continuing request pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 1054.7. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those things stated on information and belief and those I believe to be true. 

Executed on October 17, 2017, at San Mateo County, California. 

Also here is an e-mail to reporter at the PADP where he is describing a witness from the P.H. Jan. 31, 2018

From: Steve Wagstaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PMTo: Emily Mibach
Subject: People v. Jaffer

Hi Emily,

Here is the description of the testimony by the instructor:

DEFENSE THEN CALLED MARTIN ROMUALDEZ, D’S JIU-JITSU INSTRUCTOR FOR 6 MTHS PRIOR TO INCIDENT, AND THEN CALLED OFC REY. MR. ROMUALDEZ TESTIFIED THAT WHAT HE OBSERVED ON THE BODY CAM FOOTAGES WAS THE DEF PERFORMING A JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT HE HAD BEEN TRAINED IN (ARM BAR/TRIANGLE). MR. ROMUALDEZ ADMITTED HOWEVER THAT IN THE NUMEROUS PRACTICE SESSIONS WHERE D AND HIS SON JOHN DOE WERE INVOLVED THAT D WAS NEVER NAKED, THAT IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY SCREAMING ON THE PART OF JOHN DOE, THAT JOHN DOE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE IN PAIN, THAT JOHN DOE WAS NEVER INJURED OR TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. INSTRUCTOR FURTHER ADMITTED THERE IS NO JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT INVOLVES INSERTING FINGERS INTO ONE’S ANUS OR SELF-STIMULATING IN THAT MANNER, AND THAT THE PRACTICE SESSION S WITH D AND HIS SON NEVER INVOLVED ANY KIND OF TRASH TALK OR LANGUAGE SUCH AS “PUSSY.”

San Mateo County should Audit this case and that includes CPS & APS.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Palo Alto Daily Post, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

CPS workers criminal case moves forward, They each face 10 yrs in Prison. Gabriel Fernandez R.I.P.

San Mateo County CPS should be Audited ASAP for the Zain Jaffer children case. See if they acted independent of the District Attorney very suspect dismissal of the entire case as they are supposed to do. Hillsborough Police arrested him for Attempted Murder.

L.A. Social workers’ charges upheld in boy’s death
SOCIAL workers Kevin Bom, left, Stefanie Rodriguez, Gregory Merritt and Patricia Clement, in court Thursday, face charges in Gabriel Fernandez’s death. (Irfan Khan Los Angeles Times)
By Richard Winton and Corina Knoll
A Los Angeles County judge on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss child abuse and other charges against four social workers in the killing of 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez, concluding that the Palmdale boy’s death had been “foreseeable.”
“I have spent a lot of time, needless to say, on the case,” Superior Court Judge George G. Lomeli said. “This isn’t something I did by the seat of my pants.”
The ruling came more than a year after another judge concluded that “red flags were everywhere” before Gabriel was killed by his mother and her boyfriend, and that the social workers mishandled evidence of escalating abuse and failed to file timely reports.
Gabriel died in May 2013 after months of torture and abuse, prosecutors say.
His death became a symbol of bureaucratic failure and propelled far-reaching reforms within L.A. County’s child welfare system. In 2016, the case took a highly unusual turn when prosecutors accused the four former Department of Children and Family Services employees of felony child abuse and falsifying public records.
Thursday, Lomeli said the social workers had not properly documented the abuse nor the mother’s repeated refusal to attend counseling. The judge said he had reviewed the voluminous case files and noted that the defendants had overruled a scoring system set up to detect danger to children.
The defendants demonstrated “an improper regard for human life” and “a lack of vigilance,” Lomeli said.
Defense attorneys argued that Gabriel had not been in the care and custody of the social workers and that there was no willful gross negligence. Lomeli, they said, was judging the child protection agency and not their clients. They plan to appeal the decision.
“We are confident in our client’s case when all the facts come out at trial,” said Lance M. Filer, an attorney for former social worker Stefanie Rodriguez.
Outside the courtroom, another defendant, Patricia Clement, sobbed.
Prosecutors alleged that caseworkers Clement and Rodriguez, along with supervisors Kevin Bom and Gregory Merritt, ignored evidence of repeated abuse and minimized Gabriel’s injuries. They each face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.
The case marks the first time that L.A. County social workers have faced criminal charges in performing their duties, prosecutors said, and is one of only a handful of such cases filed nationwide in recent decades. The decision by Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey to prosecute the employees surprised many child protection experts, who worried the decision could make it more difficult to recruit social workers.
The boy’s mother, Pearl Sinthia Fernandez, pleaded guilty this year to first-degree murder in Gabriel’s death and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. A jury convicted her boyfriend, Isauro Aguirre, of murder, and he was sentenced to death.
In sentencing the pair in June, Lomeli characterized the killing as “horrendous, inhumane and nothing short of evil.”
richard.winton@latimes.com
Twitter: @lacrimes
corina.knoll@latimes.com
Twitter: @corinaknoll
Times staff writer Marisa Gerber contributed to this report.

For those readers who are new to the idea that it is up to the residents/citizens to make sure CPS Social Workers are not above the law. This video should prove that point.

Attorney supports Fraud & Perjury

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark Church, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

Coastal Commission a Tax Payer Story.

LA Times 9/14/2018

Coastal officials let off the hook
MARK VARGAS was fined $13,600 for rule violations. But taxpayers, not he and four other guilty coastal officials, will foot the bill — and that was never in doubt. (David Royal For The Times)
STEVE LOPEZ
Ever since five current and former California coastal commissioners were found guilty this spring of breaking rules designed to ensure fairness and transparency, one question has remained unanswered:
Who’s going to pay for their sins?
We now have the answer.
Any guesses?
Walk over to a mirror, take a good look and reach for your wallet.
We just got stuck with a bill of roughly $1 million because five people chose not to follow easily understandable rules meant to ensure that their private meetings were fairly and fully reported before they voted on beach projects. And if that’s not insulting enough, try this:
There was never any doubt as to who would pay if they were found guilty, not that anyone let us in on that little detail.
And here’s the irony:
In a lawsuit over conversations that took place out of public view, a pretrial decision was made by the Coastal Commission — also out of public view — to indemnify the commissioners against liability for payment if they lost.
“The law entitles the commissioners to representation by the state absent malice, fraud or corruption,” said a Coastal Commission statement released late Thursday afternoon by spokeswoman Noaki Schwartz. “This Commission earlier agreed to indemnify the defendants to the full extent provided by law.”
The thinking behind that decision was that the commissioners, who claimed they did no wrong, were just trying their best to do their jobs as public servants, so defending them should be a public expense.
But a judge didn’t buy their claim of total innocence. So former commissioners Steve Kinsey, Wendy Mitchell and Martha McClure were fined $30,300, $7,100 and $2,600, respectively, by a San Diego County Superior Court judge in a case that went to trial early this year and has just concluded.
They won’t pay a nickel.
Current commissioners Mark Vargas and Erik Howell were fined $13,600 and $3,500.
They won’t pay a dime.
The judge also tapped them for $959,000 in attorney’s fees and court costs.
But we’re picking up that bill, too.
“This is unbelievable,” former Coastal Commission lawyer Ralph Faust said.
With indemnification going in, Faust said, the accused commissioners couldn’t lose.
“They got a defense on the theory they were innocent,” he said, “and indemnification in case it turned out they were guilty.”
“Oh, what a charade,” said Kathryn Burton, a retired attorney and president of Spotlight on Coastal Corruption, which filed suit against the commissioners in 2016 alleging hundreds of rules violations. “This means that this could be done for anyone, not just coastal commissioners, and it sets a horrible precedent. And I really question the legality of it.”
The suit came about because in California, decisions on coastal development and land use are a game of money, power and access. Although the coastal commissioners perform quasi-judicial duties, they’re allowed to have private conversations with parties prior to ruling on projects.
Most of these conversations are with proponents of projects rather than opponents, often through well-paid and politically connected lobbyists.
There’s an easy way to avoid shady business. Just outlaw these private communications. But powerful forces have managed to keep them in place, even though it’s not always possible for the public to know precisely what was discussed over dinner or drinks.
The Times exposed dozens of cases of commissioners failing to make full accounts of conversations, turning in the reports late, not turning them in at all or letting lobbyists write the accounts of what was discussed.
And I don’t buy the defense’s argument that the real problem was a lousy filing system and no clear education on the rules of private, or ex parte, meetings.
By early indications, the $1 million in costs could get carved out of an already tight Coastal Commission budget of about $28 million. If so, that could mean layoffs and less protection of the coast. In other words, we just keep getting sand kicked in our faces. The only good to come of this was that commissioners have been put on notice, going forward, that we’re watching their every move. And some better commissioners have filled the seats of those who left.
From the beginning, the decision to defend the accused commissioners was controversial because they, not the agency they served, were sued as individuals. Faust, the former agency lawyer, questions the attorney general’s decision to defend the commissioners at all.
“It seemed to me they should have walked away from this in the first place,” Faust said. “If commissioners were violating the law, they were doing so not as commissioners, but outside the scope of the law.”
Cory Briggs, Spotlight’s attorney, said Thursday he never imagined anyone but the commissioners would be held accountable for fines and fees assessed against them as individuals. He sued them, not the state agency. Briggs argued from the beginning that the accused commissioners knew the rules and chose to ignore them.
In a head-slapping development last week, the lawyer arguing the case for Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra seemed to agree that the defendants were not public officials, but private citizens.
“Here, the Attorney General’s office was representing private individuals sued in their personal capacity,” the deputy attorney general wrote in a convoluted attempt to have Spotlight cover the state’s defense costs of $649,000.
Like I said in my Wednesday column, if they were private individuals, the attorney general shouldn’t have been defending them on our dime.
The state’s justification for asking defense costs to be paid by Spotlight was that this was a victory for the commissioners, not a loss, since most charges were dismissed and millions in potential fines were avoided. And the attorney general has already appealed, so we could get stuck with more bills.
This was no victory.
This was a dark chapter in Coastal Commission history and a rebuke of arrogant commissioners who didn’t take seriously their duty to protect the coast and the public.
The final insult was sticking us with the bill.
steve.lopez@latimes.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Michael G. Stogner, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate