Why would any Judge endorse the Sheriff, District Attorney (their former bosses), or the Coroner? Don’t the residents want their Judges to be fair, honest and neutral?
I don’t think it would be possible to name another San Mateo County Judge who has caused more harm to young Boys than Retired Judge Marta Diaz.
John Roam of the San Francisco Daily Journal wrote:
Not everyone is a fan. Diaz is among a number of county officials who have come under fire recently for referring juveniles to a child psychiatrist who was later charged with molesting three young male patients. Dr. William Ayres is set to stand trial later this year.
Local government watchdog Michael G. Stogner, of Belmont, has insisted that county officials, including Diaz, continued sending patients to Ayres, despite knowing about the accusations. New York-based journalist and victims’ advocate, Victoria Balfour, has accused Diaz of protecting Ayres.
Diaz shrugged off the attacks. “Stogner and Balfour have this little jihad against me,” she said. “I don’t care. I know it’s all bullshit. All will come out.”
It did Dr. William Ayres died in Prison.
Judge Marta Diaz along with Judge Robert Foiles hand picked Stuart Forrest for the Probation Chief of San Mateo County. He later went to PRISON for Child Pornography. That’s two.
Now San Mateo County has two Judges and a favorite Newspaper endorsing the Operation Doll House LIAR for Sheriff, I am not surprised. You shouldn’t be either.
Write-In Candidate Heinz Puschendorf recently said: When I’m elected Sheriff, one of the first things I would do is open an inquiry, to investigate the Munir Edais’ death case.
Every resident of San Mateo County should support that, IMHO.
$23.5 Million is an update, I’ll give you that. 1:37:18 mark
Agenda Item #5 Update on Event Center Surplus Safety Equipment
This was the title for Agenda Item 5 of the March 22, 2022 Board of Supervisors Meeting. That might explain why there was only ONE public comment on this topic.
The person that put this on the Agenda was San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy, with the approval of County Counsel.
I would say this was more of a regurgitation of the same story that Mr. Callagy has been promoting since January 13, 2022, when he told ABC 7 I-Team Investigative Reporter Dan Noyes that he knew nothing about it.
Red Flag 1:39:00 mark, “The other goods were eventually moved outside for temporary storage and were regrettably ah remained there during the significant storms last fall LEADING TO THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.” What do you know about this Independent Investigation so far? What is the scope of this Investigation? Is the Investigation about the significant storms? Why was there an update without having this Investigator make a presentation at the BOS meeting?
Red Flag 1:39:11 mark, “We’ve been lucky enough throughout this AFTER ACTION to really partner with Wine Country Marines to continue to work on distributing these surplus equipment. Everybody knows what an AFTER ACTION is, Right?
The residents of San Mateo County remember what the Foster City Gang of 3 did to their City Manager.
Foster City Manager Peter Prinejad was FIRED for ZERO reason. The residents of Los Altos Hills are the winners in that case they now have a Great City Manager.
Update: This Motion to Destroy Records has been continued to January 3, 2022
Dear Attorney General Rob Bonta,
Please don’t forget Zain Jaffer was arrested by the Hillsborough Police Department on October 15, 2017 for Attempted Murder of a child, There is Body Worn Camera Video.
Tomorrow December 20, 2021 Superior Court of California County of San Mateo in Courtroom 2A at 10:00 AM the Hon. Judge Barbara Mallach has a Motion to Destroy all the records in the Zain Jaffer case 17NF012415A.
Destroying the Records and Evidence is Not in the Public’s Interest.
These records could be very valuable to the wife and children in the future.
Diminished Capacity is No Excuse for Criminal Conduct.
Karen Guidotti <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Michael Stogner Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:39 AM·
The meeting was on Thursday, June 7.·
Deputy District Attorney Sharon Cho, Deputy District Attorney Sean Gallagher and I attended along with the following people from the defense team: Attorney Patrick Clancy, attorney Daniel Olmos, Dr. Eric Wexler and Dr. George Woods.·
The meeting lasted 1 and ½ hours; Ms. Cho and the defense team remained in the meeting room after Mr. Gallagher and I left. I do not know how much longer they stayed.·
Yes, we viewed the body camera footage.
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 9:02 AM To: Karen Guidotti <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Zain Jaffer case Hello Karen, What date did the defense team for Zain Jaffer make the presentation in the District Attorney’s Office? Who attended? How long was that meeting? Were HPD body camera videos looked at or discussed?
I’m not saying there is any connection here, just Somebody filed this motion to SEAL and DESTROY ARREST & RELATED RECORDS of Zain Jaffer, On November 18, 2021 and 3 days later all courtroom telephone public access got cancelled.
Public Access Policy Updated 11/22/21 – The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect; proceedings are open to the public to attend in person.
11/18/2021 Petition to Seal and Destroy Arrest Record Filed (PC 851.8) Comment CR-409 Petition to Seal Arrest & Related Records PC 851.91
12/20/2021 Motion hearings Judicial Officer Mallach, Barbara J. Hearing Time 10:00 AM
Comment PC 851.91
The Short list of who wants these records Destroyed is the San Mateo County Government and of course Zain Jaffer and his Defense Team.
Bianca Fasuescu <email@example.com>To:firstname.lastname@example.orgThu, Dec 16 at 9:59 AM
Dear Mr. Stogner,
The court received the (attached) request, which you submitted pursuant to rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court, on Tuesday, December 7, 2021.
The court has concluded that processing this request will require additional time and, therefore, is invoking the 14-day extension permitted under rule 10.500. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.500(e)(8)(A)–(C).) We estimate we will be able to notify you whether the court has disclosable responsive records by Monday, January 10, 2022.
My records show the document was received on December 6, 2021 at 8:03AM
It’s no Secret that the San Mateo Daily Journal and District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe want Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos to be Re-Elected in the next election.
SMDJ knows this is not quiet the truth, Bolanos — appointed in 2016, Somebody removed this News Release from the Governments website before the July 12, 2016 Board of Supervisor Meeting, John Maltbie was the Clerk to the Supervisors and John Beiers San Mateo County Counsel would have word crafted and final approval of the agenda item. Who removed Michelle Durand’s press release, and Who word crafted the agenda Item. Remember Don Horsley and Carole Groom were asked to RECUSE themselves. They didn’t.
Bolanos — appointed in 2016, elected in 2018 and now running for reelection — said he also routinely receives outlandish emails and communications from people which he said he’s learned to ignore.
Now vindicated, Bolanos said he’s thankful the DA’s office investigated the case and hopes the public will be less inclined to believe such allegations in the future.
“I’m glad the District Attorney’s Office investigated it and determined that there was absolutely no merit to me being involved with that organization,” Bolanos said. “Hopefully people learn from this and recognize that just because somebody says something and tweets something it may not be true. People should do some critical thinking before they assume something.”
This sounded familiar,
“just because somebody says something and tweets something it may not be true.“
I’ve been saying this for just over 20 years, “Just because somebody says something is true, doesn’t mean that it is.” I can’t take credit for the statement I first heard it in court by a very popular San Carlos Attorney named Jeff Cost. He credited it to his father.
The SMDJ in 2018 Endorsed Carlos G. Bolanos for Sheriff which is fine, but they also printed a False statement about Him being “OUTSIDE the entire time.” Operation Dollhouse, FBI Sting Las Vegas Nevada, April 21, 2007.
Everybody and their Mother knows that is a Lie.
Here is the entire SMDJ article from December 15, 2021
San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office solves mystery over Oath Keeper account Belmont resident responsible for creating memberships for sheriff, police chief to far-right group By Sierra Lopez Daily Journal staff 3 hrs ago Carlos Bolanos A Belmont resident was responsible for registering Sheriff Carlos Bolanos and former Belmont Police Chief Dan DeSmidt with a far-right anti-government organization as a reminder of their oath to the Constitution, an investigation by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office found.“ Anybody who knows me knows I’m not of the persuasion that would join an organization like that. They knew it was a joke but unfortunately, it got taken seriously and it wasn’t funny anymore,” Bolanos said. In October, allegations that Bolanos was affiliated with the Oath Keepers, a national right-wing militia group, were first made online after his email was discovered in a leaked database published and stored by the anti-secrecy organization Distribution Denial of Secrets. At the time, Bolanos denied being a member of the organization and asserted that someone else must have registered him, though he was unsure of who would have done so. Bolanos said a news organization discovered that a third party likely registered him with the organization and he immediately turned that information over to the DA’s office.Additional information was also shared with the office from the San Mateo County Counsel’s Office, Bill Massey, chief investigator with the DA’s office, said. The department did not go through the leaked database but Massey said they did reach out to the Oath Keepers, which was unresponsive. What their investigation did find was that a Belmont resident registered Bolanos and DeSmidt with the organization in 2017. The Belmont Police Department was also made aware of the incident back in 2017, but declined to pursue the case at the time because they were familiar with the individual’s behavior, Massey said.“Without going into detail, he’s a very outspoken individual. He has some views that may not be mainstream so he’s known in the city of Belmont,” Massey said about the person who created the accounts for the officials.When questioned, Massey said the individual confessed to registering the public officials with the organization with the intent of reminding them of their oath to the U.S. Constitution. Massey said they verified the individual was responsible for the accounts by reviewing packages from the Oath Keepers which were addressed to Bolanos and DeSmidt but sent to the Belmont resident’s home.Massey said the DA’s office was investigating the issue of impersonation and identity theft of Bolanos given that the Sheriff’s Office couldn’t investigate a case in which the sheriff is the victim. Under Penal Code 528.5, the individual could have been charged with a misdemeanor for impersonating an individual online without permission with the intent of harming, intimidating, threatening or defrauding another person.But the DA’s office opted to not file charges because they could not verify that the individual’s actions were done maliciously. Additionally, the investigation fell outside a one-year statute of limitation embedded in the penal code because the Belmont Police Department was aware of the issue around 2017, triggering the statute countdown.Bolanos — appointed in 2016, elected in 2018 and now running for reelection — said he also routinely receives outlandish emails and communications from people which he said he’s learned to ignore.Now vindicated, Bolanos said he’s thankful the DA’s office investigated the case and hopes the public will be less inclined to believe such allegations in the future.“I’m glad the District Attorney’s Office investigated it and determined that there was absolutely no merit to me being involved with that organization,” Bolanos said. “Hopefully people learn from this and recognize that just because somebody says something and tweets something it may not be true. People should do some critical thinking before they assume something.”email@example.com(650) 344-5200 ext. 106
Here is a simple question for Reporter Sierra Lopez, What is the name of the Belmont Resident?
Pretty cool to Solve a Mystery with an Unnamed and Uncharged Belmont Resident.
December 13, 2021 in Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo courtroom 2G, Attorney Tony Serra made the above statement in the People vs. Juan Pablo Lopez case NF433910A. I must admit it was refreshing to hear the truth spoken in a courtroom. Everybody and their mother knows that is true.
San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Kimberly Perrotti, knows it true, she didn’t object to the statement or ask that it be stricken.
These e-mails show the Special Relationship that existed in April of 2007 and still exist today. San Mateo County District Attorneys James P. Fox and Steve Wagstaffe sent them before San Mateo County Residents ever heard about Operation Dollhouse. They NEVER asked, Why were you two INSIDE that single family residence located at 3474 Eldon Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, on April 21, 2007 @ 9:30PM?
It was either for sex with under aged Human Trafficked Sex Slaves which Munks said they had no intention to pay for, or it was a Drug Deal Busted by the FBI? The SMC Government and the media have never been interested to find out, Why did they go inside that house.
This Letter to the Editor was published today December 8, 2021 in the Half Moon Bay Review. Very few of the 760,000 Residents of San Mateo County have any idea that this Big Change has even occurred, Not one of the many local Newspapers have even bothered to inform their readers. It could be because they don’t have any reporters covering the Courts and none of them are even aware of this change.
San Mateo County Superior Court would have us believe this pandemic is over.
On Nov. 22, the Superior Court announced on its website that Remote Access, which enables the public to listen via telephone to courtroom proceedings, has been discontinued, effective immediately.
No explanation nor advanced notice was given. Other Bay Area counties’ Superior Courts and even the Ninth District Federal Court in San Francisco continue to provide courtroom audio via telephone.
This is a public health issue. Requiring that courtroom observers attend court proceedings in person at the 400 County Center Building in Redwood City is risky and inconvenient during this pandemic — especially so for those who reside along the coast.
Ironically, the announcement adds that Superior Court will begin to convene some court proceedings via Zoom in order to eliminate the need for court trial participants to attend hearings in person. It states, “This is to reduce the number of visits by the public to the courthouses, thereby minimizing potential infection of the public and staff.” Yet court watchers must attend in person. Sounds as if someone wants to stifle public oversight of the San Mateo County court system.
Public trials assure defendants a fair and honest playing field, and accurate reporting of court proceedings is critical to the public’s right to know. We want to trust the system, the judges, the clerks, the court reporters. We want the Remote Access telephone lines reinstated.
UPDATED NOVEMBER 22, 2021 Public Access Policy to Superior Court of California San Mateo County.
The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect; proceedings are open to the public to attend in person.
Updated 11/22/21 – The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect; proceedings are open to the public to attend in person.
San Mateo County Superior Court is committed to continuing public access to court proceedings during and after the pandemic emergency. Due to COVID-19 and public health concerns, the Court has shifted to convene some court proceedings remotely in order to eliminate the need for individuals to attend hearings in person. This is to reduce the number of visits by the public to the courthouses, thereby minimizing potential infection of the public and staff.
At this time, members of the public may attend a court proceeding in person. The Court is committed to maintaining a safe workplace for our staff and the public. Each courtroom can accommodate a different number of seats in the audience. You will need to check-in with the bailiff when you enter the courtroom. The bailiff will inform you as to whether or not there is an available seat, or if capacity has been reached. If capacity has been reached, you may remain outside the courtroom until someone leaves. Face coverings are required at all times inside the courthouse.
Zoom may not be used for public access without the approval of the judicial officer.
San Mateo County News.com first reported this Important Change in Policy on November 24, 2021.
Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P. was killed May 5, 2020 at 845 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, California. She was killed by San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy David Dominguez, who fired 11 hollow point bullets at her at close range. San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, and the District Attorney’s Office claim the Body Worn Camera that was working perfectly just minutes before the Homicide was turned off by Deputy Dominguez.
The City of Half Moon Bay and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office have made NO CORRECTIONS since Yanira Serrano Garcia was killed on June 3, 2014 by San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Trieu.
Both Sheriff Deputies responded alone, with NO PLAN. Both Homicides had Evidence Tampering. Yanira was shot and killed within 20 seconds of Deputy Trieu exiting his vehicle.
How hard would it be for the City of Half Moon Bay and the Sheriff’s Office to change the procedure that would stop Deputies from going by themselves. DO NOT go to the scene ALONE, Have a Plan.
The current plan is Let Them Sue us It’s Not Our Money.
The City of Half Moon Bay is represented by San Mateo County Counsel again.