Monthly Archives: December 2018

Why SMC Supervisors should pay for the recount of Measure W.

 

 

 

August 8, 2017 the Supervisors gave $350,000 of taxpayer money to Jim Hartnett to pay for the behind the scenes Outreach Consultants to work against the taxpayers.

See if the title for Agenda item 4 sounds honest: Study Session Regarding Transportation Obstacles, Opportunities, and Needs. The reason I ask is the Grand Jury reported the Supervisors mislead the residents to pass Measure A in 2102.

2012 Grand Jury Report

August 8, 2017 BOS meeting click on #4,7

Heinz Puschendorf requesting the recount of Measure W

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012

SMC Supervisors Interest Level of Murder by Sheriff Deputies.

If you want to see the 5 Supervisors interested or excited about a subject just look up any of the “Revenue Enhancement” meetings where they use taxpayer money for consultants and think tank people for the word crafting for Measure W etc.

IMG_7192

Chinedu Oboki was murdered October 3, 2018 at 1400 El Camino Real Millbrae, California by 5 San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies. He was unarmed, committed no crimes other than walking while black. Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos is responsible for this.

IMG_7185

The public is saying 5 deputies murdered Chindeu Oboki.

IMG_7182

Regina Islas demanding the release of the video and audio recordings of Chinedu Oboki’s murder.

Photos from December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisors Public Comment.

Board of Supervisor Meeting

FB Message

Rabbi Steven Weil wrote a meditation on suffering after the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. In it, he quotes the Talmudic theologian, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who theorized that Judaism’s approach to suffering rests on three pillars. The first is accepting that suffering and evil exist. The second pillar demands active, steadfast resistance to evil. The final pillar calls for faith that resistance will eventually be rewarded, even in the face of defeat.

There is also a Christian tradition of standing in the gap. It refers to being an intercessor, a go-between, a person who takes the weight, who intercedes on behalf of another for mercy, or salvation, or justice.

I am not, despite my wonderful mother’s very best efforts, a person of religious faith. I am, however, a person of conviction, and I am thinking of this because this week, over 50 people stood in the gap for our family, for justice, when they attended the San Mateo County Board of Supervisor’s Meeting. Social justice activists, veterans, Morehouse alumni, faith leaders, my Facebook colleagues current and former, employees of other tech companies, San Mateo county citizens-a coalition of people with the courage and conviction to stand in the gap.

One of the items for review during that Board meeting was a request from the San Mateo County Sheriff for a $4 million contract to Axon Enterprise. This was notable, because Axon is the manufacturer of tasers. While the revised stated purpose is for body cameras, the resolution authorizes the Sheriff to amend the term and the services provided without review, and waives the normal proposal process for any changes carrying a cost of $100,000 or less. The resolution was passed.

That a county in which 3 unarmed citizens were killed with supposedly non-lethal tasers within 10 months would allow a resolution giving the Sheriff a $100,000 blank check for the purchase of more tasers, before its coroner has even returned a report on the last killing-it certainly feels like defeat. That a county in the process of investigating its third taser killing, after having imposed no sanction at all on any of the officers involved in the first two, would allow all six deputies who killed the third victim back to work-that certainly feels like defeat. That the San Mateo County Sheriff would go one step farther and actually assign one of those deputies to work on the day of the Board of Supervisors meeting so that friends and family of the most recently deceased would see him on their way in-that certainly feels like defeat. That those deputies were back at work before my mother could get a permanent marker for my brother’s grave-that certainly feels like defeat.

And yet.

When I watch those clergy, friends, colleagues, concerned citizens stand in the gap-I take heart. When I hear from many of the thousands of people who have called and written District Attorney Wagstaffe to demand transparency-I take heart. When I hear from so many people who had previously lived lives untouched by police brutality tell me about how they are getting and staying proximate, I take heart.

I am not a person of faith. I am convinced that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, but not through magical thinking. It bends ONLY when we fight for every single inch.

As Frederick Douglass said-

”Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted.”

I am so grateful to those of you who resist.

**To get proximate, to help-
1. You can call DA Wagstaffe (try doing it once a week!) to demand justice and transparency-ask him to assure the public that the outside investigator is truly independent : (650) 363-4636. Office hours are M-F 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PT.
2. If you are interested in doing more-DM me, or reach out to any of the social justice orgs below.

Shaun King
Anti Police-Terror Project
Faith in Action Bay Area
Black Alliance for Just Immigration
Color Of Change
Congregational Church of San Mateo United Church of Christ
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Redwood City – UUFRC
Pacifica Social Justice
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus
Fools Mission
SV De-Bug
Mothersquest
PICO California
Unitarian Universalists of San Mateo
Trinity Presbyterian Church, San Carlos
Woodside Road United Methodist Church
Amy Eilberg
University AME Zion Church
Peninsula Democratic Socialists of America
Live Free

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, City of Millbrae, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DOJ, Don Horsley, Errol Chang R.I.P., Grand Jury, John Beiers, John Burris, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, NAACP, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Ramsey Saad R.I.P., RICO, Robert Foucrault, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P., Yes on Measure A 2012

SIX4THREE vs. FACEBOOK

December 7, 2018 San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope Courtroom 8A. 9:00AM

Plaintiff: SIX4THREE

Defendants: Cox, Christopher, Does 1-50, Facebook Inc., Lessin, Samuel, Olivan, Javier, Sukhar, Ilya, Zuckerberg, Mark, The Washington Post

Six4Three Attorneys: Godkin, David S, Kruzer, James E., Gross, Stuart G.

Facebook Attorneys: Miller Laura E., Kim, Catherine Y,  Metha, Sonal N., Lerner, Joshua H

Washington Post Attorney: Carolan, Duffy

Yesterday I drove 90 miles be in the courtroom to observe. Many of you know I have been a Private Victim’s Advocate in San Mateo County for the last 19 years. I am very interested in the lobbying aspect and Influence peddling of the Tech companies with local governments, example Judges, District Attorneys, Local Sheriff Offices, Local Law Enforcement agencies, County Supervisors etc. What are the tech capabilities with respect to data, like hacking the California DMV computer system. I’m currently interested in keeping Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas alive. She was recently criminally charged in San Mateo County for a misdemeanor all records are SEALED. Is it possible that a friend of FB could influence the criminal charges being filed of a civilian? That is why I was there yesterday.

Hon Judge Raymond Swope, informed the people in the courtroom that it is very common for him to sign protective orders, and seal orders. That is when I realized he might not have a clue what he sealed. He did acknowledge that at least 250 pages are now in the public domain in Europe House of Commons.

Expedited Discovery: FB Attorneys claimed they don’t know what information Ted Kramer disclosed. They know what was sealed don’t they? They claim “We need to know and most importantly the Court needs to know. “How do we get to the bottom of this.”

That is a great question, in order to answer that you would need to identify what THIS is.

Hon. Judge Judge Raymond Swope was doing the work of FB attorneys when he got stopped. He tried to get attorney David S. Godkin to answer a question that violated “Attorney Client Privilege.” That is when I decided to leave, this case was getting bigger and causing more questions to be asked not less. like watching an atomic mushroom cloud grow. I have to give FB credit they not only show up with enough attorneys to fill a Mini Van they also had a Public Relations pretty girl to ask me in the hall if I was Media and do I have any questions for her about what I just observed. I answered I am the media, I’m San Mateo County News, and no I have no questions.

Styleform IT. vs. Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg responds to the 250 pages released.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Damian Collins, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Silicon Valley, SMC, The New York Times, Thomas Scaramellino, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Washington Post

San Mateo County Government E-mails should be preserved not deleted.

106709_San Mateo County

Why would government want to delete, destroy e-mails? E-mails should be preserved permanently. They show the public the behind the scenes communications between elected officials who have taken an oath, and high ranking appointed officials who are supposed to represent the public’s best interest.

Below is just one example of 4 top SMC Officials communicating their support of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves being used for their personal pleasure, and their distain for the media. All 5 Supervisors shared the same idea.  These e-mails are 11 years old and still current when you add what is happening to Jody L. Williams today in SMC by Steve Wagstaffe, and John Warren.

emails&literature

SMC E-mail Policy November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.

Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.

Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.

The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.

From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To: Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM PST
Subject: Re: Status on the e-mail deletion policy
That might be just fine, but as you can see very few people even know about this and you can stop this for a 6 month review period starting today until you decide the proper time period to hold e-mails like 20 years etc.
Michael
On Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:09:10 AM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael,

As I understand it, the policy has been in place for years and that is the info I’m trying to obtain.  I think ISD realized we were not reaching our objective to get rid of the clutter of emails in the system, so this policy was brought back to address that.  I’m trying to find out exactly how this came back up, but it was in the works well before Nov. 2018.
Best regards,

Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike,
It looks like November 7, 2018 is when this 90 day old e-mails are to be deleted Policy was created by ISD, Who came up with this if Not You?

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

NUMBER: F-2

SUBJECT: E-Mail Policy

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Information Services Department (ISD)

DATE: November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.
As you and most County Officials and staff know I am a Private Victim’s Advocate and have worked on behalf of several San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and employees. Just to mention a few, Female Deputy who reported Rape Video on County Computers being viewed and shared with upper management of the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez being abused by San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, David Silberman and others including Carlos G. Bolanos,Steve Wagstaffe, John Warren, Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf who has not been unable to get to his emails. Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas connected to Operation Dollhouse recently criminally charge in SMC. Measure A,K,W e-mails. Zain Jaffer criminal 8 felony case dismissed for lack of evidence, (sure) I can think of 60,000,000 reasons this case was dismissed. Yanira Serrano-Garcia murdered by Sheriff Deputy, Errol Chan Murdered by Swat, Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell DV Call to 911, James McGee 17.5 hour standoff two Swat teams after 911 call for DV no DV charges. Ramsey Saad R.I.P.
That is a short list. Please consider this a formal request to save all emails regarding any of the people and subjects mentioned above.
This subject should be discussed with the public before ANY e-mails are deleted. What is the cost to keep them?
I hope you will stop this today.
Michael G. Stogner
On Friday, January 25, 2019, 6:12:20 PM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael, I’m still researching this as I want to be clear when this policy started.  The policy, as I understand it, has been around a long time. It is a matter of now enforcing it.  Im trying to determine how far back the policy goes.  We don’t have unlimited storage for emails so there has to be controls in place.  Employees are encouraged to save their emails and put them in files.  It is an easy process.  I will get you the history soon.  Have a nice weekend. Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 25, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Good morning Michael,
What is the status on the County wide policy to delete e-mails after they are 90 days old starting Feb 1, 2019?
By your response it looks like it was not your policy, Who’s policy is it?
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Kristina Paszek <kpaszek@smcgov.org>
To:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com
Jan 16 at 4:28 PM

Dear Mr. Stogner,

Your correspondence of January 11 to Carole Groom was forwarded to our office for response.  I also understand that you recently sent a follow-up e-mail today to Supervisor Groom.  This e-mail will respond to both of your e-mails.

The County’s e-mail policy is set forth in the attached Administrative Memo F-2, which was developed (and is revised from time to time) by the County’s Information Services Department, subject to approval by the County Manager.  The provisions concerning the deletion of e-mail were adopted in April 2015 around the time that the County switched from Groupwise to Outlook for its e-mail.

The County’s e-mail policy is distinct from the County and department-specific records retention policies that are approved by the Board of Supervisors.  With respect to what appear to be your concerns, although the e-mail policy reiterates that the County’s e-mail system is not intended to be a means of records storage, it recognizes that some e-mail messages that are generated or received through the County’s computer systems constitute records that must be retained pursuant to the County’s or a department’s records retention policy (or due to threatened or actual litigation), and it details how those e-mail messages are to be retained.  The e-mail policy does not impact each department’s responsibility to retain records in accordance with state law.  As explained in the policy, all e-mails that are determined to be records to be retained for business or legal reasons are to be saved.  There are a number of ways to retain such e-mails, as detailed in the policy, but we expect that in most cases, a user will simply place the e-mail in an e-mail subfolder.  A user can create e-mail subfolders and set a 1-year, 2-year, 10-year retention or mark the folder(s) to be kept permanently.  In addition, a mailbox that is being held for litigation will not be subjected to any automatic deletion until after the litigation is resolved.

Regards,

Kristina Paszek

Deputy County Counsel

San Mateo County Counsel’s Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel:  650-363-4989

Fax:  650-363-4034

 

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Kristina Paszek
Cc:Carole Groom,Don Horsley,Warren Slocum,Dave Pine,Dave Canepaand 3 more…
Jan 17 at 5:57 PM
Dear Kristina,
Thank You for your response on behalf of Board of Supervisor President Carole Groom, I’m still not sure why she couldn’t have just answered my questions directly. I now have more questions regarding the policy to delete e-mails after 90 days.  How many of San Mateo County employees have received the memo and how did they get it and when did they get it. How many managers have taken a training course on how to preserve e-mails? How many employees have taken a training course in this policy? What method was used to notify and prepare the employees for this policy?
It might be best for everyone involved to hit the stop/pause button on this policy.
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Carole Groom,Dave Canepa,Dave Pine,Don Horsley,Warren Slocumand 3 more…
Jan 16 at 10:03 AM

Dear San Mateo County Supervisors,

5 days ago I asked President of Board of Supervisors to tell me if the BOS approved this policy. To this day Carole Groom has refused to answer that simple question.

Again I’m asking who is responsible for this idea and policy? What is the status as of today. There are only 15 days left before this terrible/unlawful policy takes effect.

The Public has a right to know this information.

my previous e-mail 1/11/2019

Hello Carole,

Could you please tell me if the Board of Supervisors approved this and if so what date and agenda item was it. I’m doing a follow up story on this subject and wanted to know who is responsible for this policy.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

Co-owner of San Mateo County News

Looking forward to getting a response from any of you today.

Sincerely.

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

1 Comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Adrienne Tissier, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, Juan P. Lopez, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

San Mateo Daily Journal, Measure W Recount is not newsworthy.

 

5930cc0f6e151.image

Jon Mays and Jerry Lee have known since December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor Meeting that San Mateo County Sherif Deputy Heinz Puschendorf was requesting a by hand recount of every ballot for Measure W which passed only in the last two days of reporting and by less than 500 votes.

Today’s article talks about Harvesting of ballots, no mention of Undervotes, Ballots Printed etc.

The San Mateo Daily Journal has 84,000 readers per day times 5 is 420,000 views not seen. Heinz Puschendorf is looking for 300 volunteers John and Jerry know that.

Yes on W SamTrans

SMDJ Harvesting Ballots article

Heinz Puschendorf 12/4/18 BOS Meeting Recount W

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo Daily Journal, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

Jim Sutton Yes on Measure W attorney objects.

 

jimsutton_bio

Who hired Attorney Jim Sutton? He showed up at 40 Tower Road and objected to a minuscule amount of ballots being audited. He wanted it to be official and go on the record that he objected to this action.

“It’s shocking that they had 4 Supervisors and 12 employees working 8 or 9 hours working on this all because the losing side kind of brow beat them into doing so.”

“Under the law the only way that one side has the right to ask for documents to be re-reviewed is through a recount that they pay for.” That is true, That is where San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf comes into play. He as a citizen resident and voter in SMC is doing just that. A recount by hand of every single ballot for Measure W.

Heinz Puschendorf BOS meeting 12/4/2018

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Letters to Editors, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Palo Alto Daily Post, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012

SMC Sealed & Secret Court Orders. Hon.Judge Jeffrey R. Finnigan

I call this “Operation Loose Ends” The dots to be connected here are Operation Doll House April 21, 2007, Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case.

Jody Loren Williams case number 18-SM-009489-A

This Judge signed a Warrant of Arrest for a Misdemeanor, The Police report was sealed, The secret Search Warrant was sealed. The crime she allegedly unlawfully advertised herself as practicing and entitled to practice law between May 8, and July 26 2018. The warrant is for a failure to appear, which she had no idea she was invited.

Finigan, Jeffrey photo

San Mateo County Judge Raymond Swope is getting international attention for sealing Facebooks e-mails. The keyword here is Sealed. Why?

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Barbara Kuehn., Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Hon. Judge Jeffrey R. Finnigan, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Hon. Judge Robert Foiles, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Judges, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate