Category Archives: Bill Silverfarb
By Michael G. Stogner
In the 2018 Election Mark Melville got 52,996 votes which was 40% of the 172,168 Ballots cast. 38,140 ballots or 22% of total ballots DID NOT vote for Sheriff according to the San Mateo County Elections Office website. Most of the residents of San Mateo County don’t realize that they are responsible for the behavior and conduct of their Sheriff. The Sheriff Office employees 800 people who are trusted to provide law enforcement services throughout the County. There is ZERO Oversight of this agency.
Melville stands a much better chance to win now that he has the time to get his message out to the voters.
I don’t know if Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos has any plans to run for re-election in 2022. I do know he didn’t like to attend candidate forums with Mark Melville present.
As far a transparency goes, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos has refused to provide the Booking Photo of Sheriff Sergeant Lou Aquino for his September 14, 2019 DUI Arrest by the Redwood City Police Department. I asked Candidate Melville as Sheriff would he release that photo? His answer was Yes. That was refreshing it’s pretty simple that Booking Photo is Public Information.
Contact Information for Mark Melville: firstname.lastname@example.org call / text at campaign cell number 650-730-3187
By Michael G. Stogner
Outrageous Government Conduct
Update: Next Court Date is Jan 9, 2020 9:00AM S.S.F.
Update: Next court date is November 18, 2019 2:00 P.M. Courtroom 8-C Redwood City.
The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office is not to be Political or used as a Weapon. Tell that to San Mateo County District Attorney Senior Inspector William Massey.
A reasonable person would think that the Five Supervisors (Carole Groom, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, Dave Pine, David Canepa) of San Mateo County would do everything in their power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on their watch.
A reasonable person would think that San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers and David Silberman would do everything in their power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on their watch.
A reasonable person would think that San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy would do everything in his power to assure the PUBLIC that this could NEVER happen on his watch.
I know for a fact that all of the above mentioned San Mateo County Leaders are very aware because for the last 20 years I have been keeping them informed. Public comments at the Board of Supervisor meetings, sending them copies of my articles from SMCN.com. This is a Five year case finally soon to be heard by a Jury.
Next Court Date is November 12, 2019, 9:00 AM, 400 County Center Redwood City.
All concerned citizens are welcome to attend as these motions will be heard.
The public expects criminal charges filed are Accurate and Honest, Juan P. Lopez case proves that is not true in San Mateo County.
Update November 6, 2019 Juan P. Lopez Declined the D.A.’s Offer & said “Lets go to Trial.” Next Court Date:November 12, 2019 Time: 9:00 AM 400 County Center Redwood City these Motions will be heard.
This Letter to the Editor was not published, That’s 84,000 San Mateo County Residents who won’t see this information. Jon Mays has decided this is not Newsworthy.
Michael Stogner <email@example.com>
To: Editor San Mateo Daily Journal Nov 2 at 6:58 AM
The public expects criminal charges filed are accurate and honest, Juan P. Lopez case proves that is not true in San Mateo County
November 6, 2019 SSF Court 1:30 PM
X Deputy Juan P. Lopez will inform the court of his response to the District Attorneys Office Offer of No Prison Time if he accepts the deal.
Everyone in San Mateo County remembers Five years ago he was arrested at gun point in front of his son for Smuggling a Cellphone and Drugs to a Hells Angel Inmate at the Redwood City Jail. Big press conference by D. A. Wagstaffe at the time, It was also reported he embezzled up to $400,000 of campaign donations. One small problem with that was he only raised about $400.00. Those charges were all dismissed because of Prosecutorial Misconduct. He is now being offered a deal to plead guilty to charges that came from the BACKPACK that was stolen from his car which was parked at his condo in Redwood City. That theft happened shortly after he filed papers as a Write In Candidate for Sheriff. A search warrant was then created looking for what they already had “Documents that were stolen” Mortgage Fraud the owner occupied box had a check mark in it. The lender never filed a complaint.
Any concerned citizens/residents are invited to join us in court November 6, 2019
Michael G. Stogner
I first met Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez right after he announced he was going to be a candidate for Sheriff in San Mateo County in 2014. I thanked him for giving the residents a choice for Sheriff. I was on the phone with him when he got arrested at gun point at one of his homes. I was with him when the Sheriff’s Office served him with legal papers at his home, I opened the door and greeted the 2 Sheriff Deputies. I was with him and another concerned citizen Lamont Phemister when the Sheriff’s Office ordered him to be at the Gun Range to receive more legal papers. The first time they gave him 90 minutes notice, the second time 4 day notice.
Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez was charged with 14 Felony Counts 5 years ago. The District Attorney’s Office, The Sheriff’s Office and County Counsel’s Office have done everything possible to cause harm to him and those close to him. He has lost 5 years of Income, his last year he earned about $250,000. He has hired 2 Law Firms you can guess that cost is over $200,000.
Now Five Years later the District Attorneys Office Offers a Plea Bargain the day It’s lead Investigator Jordan Boyd was to take the Witness stand. Tomorrow he and his attorneys will inform the Court and all of San Mateo County his response.
I personally think that is Newsworthy I might be wrong.
By Michael G. Stogner
SMC Sheriff Sgt. Irfan Zaidi Qualifies as a Brady Officer. Is He on the List? Who controls the list? Is there even a List?
The law enforcement profession requires integrity and trust and an officer who lies violates that trust and tarnishes the integrity of the profession.
October 3, 2018 at 1:00 PM Millbrae, California, Chinedu Okoki a 36 year old man was walking down the sidewalk on El Camino Real. Within 10 minutes he was Tasered 7 times, sprayed in the face with O.C. spray as six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees were on top of him. He was completely limp, unconscious, and never made a sound again. He died there on the spot in the Custody of the Sheriff’s Office.
San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Zaidi was not one of the Six Sheriff Employees involved in the In-Custody Death of Chinedu Okobi. Nineteen days later, On October 22, 2018 he filed an Official Report with the District Attorney’s Office making knowingly false statements.
” I directed Deputy Lorenzatti to remove the metal handcuffs from the suspect which she did, and the suspect was placed on his back. The Fire Department and AMR promptly began CPR.”
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe on March 1, 2019 provided a video that he and his Team produced for the public it can be found on his website. The placing Chinedu Okobi on his back and CPR starts at the 18:50 mark. The video shows Deputy Lorenzatti did Not remove the handcuffs.
SMCSO Deputy Lorenzatti made an official statement on 10/04/2018 3:50 PM. to Inspector Eric Suzuki.
“They were like, well let’s get him on his back and start CPR, So then I, you know helped em, bring him to his back.
Question? “Okay and were his Handcuffs off at that point?”
Answer: No they were still on.
Eng. #37 Mazza Statement: “When decedent was lifted onto the gurney, a police officer cadet or trainee removed the Handcuffs from the decedents wrists.”
AMR #94 Retanubun Statement: “They put the decedent on to a “Mega Mover” when noticed the decedent still had handcuffs on.” “Saw police cadet nearby who assisted them with the removal of the Handcuffs.”
AMR #37 Uhland: “So they laid the decedent on his back with the Handcuffs still on his wrists.”
AMR #94 Pham: “Decedent was on his back with Handcuffs on when he arrived.”
AMR #37 Holman: “When they rolled the decedent over to remove the Handcuffs, she noticed several scrapes on his hands and a few small abrasion on his back.” “She was unsure if the injuries were there prior or if caused by the CPR application.”
According to Wagstaffe’ Video, Chinedu Okobi was placed on his back at 18:26 mark.
CPR starts at 18:50 mark with Handcuffs On and Hands behind his back.
Handcuffs Removed at 28:47 mark after almost 10 minutes of Chest Compressions.
What caused Sheriff Sgt. Zaidi to file this Bizarre False Official Statement?
LATIMES Article June 6, 2019
Note: 300 Deputies on the list. Sheriff Alex Villanueva, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.
Should deputies’ misconduct be disclosed to D.A.?
Justices seem split on ruling that bars sheriff from giving officers’ names to prosecutors.
By Maura Dolan and Maya Lau
The California Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over a ruling that barred the Los Angeles County sheriff from giving prosecutors the names of deputies who have committed misconduct.
During a hearing, the state high court weighed an appeal of a decision that prohibited the sheriff from giving the district attorney the names of deputies with a history of bad behavior, including lying, taking bribes, tampering with evidence, using unreasonable force or engaging in domestic violence.
By law, prosecutors are required to disclose to defendants exculpatory evidence, including information that could diminish the credibility of police officers who worked on a case.
Several justices suggested Wednesday that prosecutors need the information to fulfill their constitutional duty to disclose potentially exonerating information.
That position has been endorsed by defense lawyers, prosecutors and the California attorney general.
Justice Goodwin Liu noted that prosecutors ultimately bear liability for failing to disclose favorable evidence.
If the prosecution is unaware that such evidence exists, convictions — even valid convictions — may eventually be overturned because of a failure to disclose, he said.
“The prosecution can’t take an ostrich-like approach to this very important duty,” Liu said.
But Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggested that the Legislature, not the court, might want to take steps to ensure that exonerating information is disclosed to the defense.
She said one possible remedy was to give trial judges sealed lists of law enforcement officers who have a history of misconduct. The judges could review those lists privately in chambers to determine whether the officers’ records were relevant in the case and should be disclosed.
“Doesn’t delivering the list directly to the court under seal … meet the problem without intruding overtly on the officers’ privacy?” she asked.
Justice Ming W. Chin also repeatedly asked whether that path, if carved out by the Legislature or by the court in a future case, could resolve the problem.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit filed by the L.A. deputies union to prevent former Sheriff Jim McDonnell from turning over to the district attorney about 300 names of deputies with a history of misconduct.
A divided, Los Angeles-based court of appeal ruled in 2017 that the list must be kept secret, even in pending criminal cases in which errant deputies were expected to testify.
The state high court’s decision, due in 90 days, would affect law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
The case pits the privacy rights of law enforcement officers against the constitutional duty of prosecutors to give the defense evidence that might cast doubt on a defendant’s guilt, reduce a potential sentence or diminish the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
That duty stems from a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady vs. Maryland, which said suppression of evidence favorable to the defense violated due process.
At issue is only whether the names can be turned over to prosecutors, not whether they would become public.
But the presence of the names on a list means deputies could be one step closer to having their disciplinary files scrutinized by a judge and their police work called into question during a court proceeding.
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar noted that the constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense trumps state law intended to protect the privacy of law enforcement officers. He suggested the court could “harmonize” the laws.
He called the case “very challenging,” but also noted that “the Brady responsibility is on the state.”
Justice Joshua P. Groban expressed skepticism about the union’s legal arguments.
“You are saying as long as we can bar the door and keep the law enforcement agency from sharing that with the prosecution, then there is no Brady violation?” he asked the lawyer for the union.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan noted that officers whose names were on a list would have less privacy protection than others.
But she also said that a state law intended to protect officer privacy while allowing some disclosures may be hindering the release of information a criminal defendant is entitled to under the Constitution.
Under the system in place for four decades, defense attorneys and prosecutors may ask a trial judge to review an officer’s personnel file to determine whether there is evidence that must be disclosed.
But without knowing an officer’s history, a defense lawyer may not be able to persuade the judge to undertake a review.
“There are cases in which legitimate and material evidence is eluding their review,” Corrigan said.
Justice Leondra R. Kruger asked whether there were legal safeguards that could be imposed to protect officer privacy after the names were disclosed to prosecutors.
Aimee Feinberg, representing the state attorney general, said courts could issue protective orders to ensure the officers’ names were shielded from the public.
Geoffrey S. Sheldon, who argued for Los Angeles County, said he felt “good” about how the hearing went.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in the case,” he said.
Judith Posner, representing the union, said she couldn’t predict the outcome.
“There were a lot of interesting and probing questions on both sides,” she said.
Police departments in at least a dozen counties, including San Francisco, Sacramento and Ventura, have had a regular practice of sending prosecutors the names of so-called Brady list officers.
California’s strict laws protecting officer personnel files — which underpinned the appellate court’s ruling for the deputies union — were dramatically altered by a new transparency law that opened up records of confirmed cases of lying and sexual misconduct by officers, as well as shootings and serious uses of force.
SB 1421, which went into effect Jan. 1, allows the public to see many of the documents at issue in the L.A. County sheriff’s case.
But the new law does not apply to the broader range of misconduct that could put an officer on a Brady list, including domestic abuse, sexual harassment, racial discrimination and bribery.
Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who ousted McDonnell in a stunning upset last fall, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.
By Michael G. Stogner
Chinedu Okobi In-Custody Death, San Mateo County Sheriff’s News Release was a lie. “Suspect Immediately Assaulted the Deputy,” Why?
Fact: There was No Immediate Assault of a Deputy. Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos knew that.
Who word crafted that? How many people were involved in that false statement?
A Reasonable Person after viewing the Video prepared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe will come to the conclusion that Chinedu V. Okobi died on El Camino Real, Millbrae California at the 9:10 mark 87 seconds before his body was sat up on his rear end with his legs straight out and his head slumped forward closing his airways. That is a full 9 minutes 40 seconds before CPR Chest Compressions were given while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. During this time there was a lot of talk and captions about checking his pulse but there is little evidence any of the 5 Sheriff Deputies or the Civilian CSO Joseph Gonzales did actually check his pulse.
SMCSO Deputy De Martini’s statement, He said he felt a pulse, but said due to the fact he had just been struggling with Okobi, he was NO LONGER Certain if he felt Okobi’s pulse or his own. That’s pretty honest. He also said “I kind of raised up his Head a little bit.”
SMCSO Sergeant David Weidner “I Never take his pulse or anything like that.”
SMCSO Watt He was Unsure if decedent Okobi was breathing because he was not moving around to the extent Deputy Watt expected after the struggle. Regarding checking pulse.”Trying to reach” “I stopped trying to take a pulse because he was moving his head around.”
SMCSO Deputy Wang Did not check Okobi for a pulse.
SMCSO Lorenzatti “Put him in a seated position Paramedics arrived on the scene and she recalled seeing a paramedic determine Okobi did have a pulse.” Deputy Lorenzatti did NOT check pulse. This statement makes it look like the paramedics were right there and started caring for Chinedu Okobi. It was 10 minutes and 29 seconds of Okobi sitting with his head slumped down before paramedics at 17:59 Caption “Paramedics try to awaken Okobi and attempt to locate a pulse.”
Jeffrey Martin the expert hired by Steve Wagstaffe and paid approx. $15,000 by Taxpayers stated 7:10 as the time Okobi was Handcuffed. Wagstaffe’s video doesn’t give a caption for time handcuffed. Weidner states Okobi was placed in seated position within 10 seconds of being handcuffed. That would be 7:20 Martin says 20 seconds so 7:30 Okobi in seated position. The video shows 10:27 Chinedu Okobi sat up on his rear end completely limp and unresponsive with head slumped forward which would have stopped his breathing if he was in fact breathing at that time. That is a 3 MINUTE difference between Expert and Deputy statements and the Video evidence.
The deputy exited his vehicle to contact the suspect and the suspect immediately assaulted the deputy, that is the biggest lie of the two. a male adult who was running in and out of traffic on El Camino Real is the second.
Chinedu Okobi was not running in and out out traffic before Deputy Wang tried to herd him with his vehicle including driving the wrong way on ECR.
Supervisor Don Horsley while serving as Sheriff terminated the employment of a Correctional Officer for being dishonest, lying to a law enforcement officer during an investigation.
The False San Mateo County Sheriff Office Press/News Release is the same thing. Everybody in the DA’s Office, County Counsel, and Sheriff’s Office who had access to the data knew the Press Release was Dishonest. There lies the problem for SMC residents/
PIO Rosemerry Blankswade and Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos are responsible for this press release to be put out to the public.
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe took 5 months to finally release a highly edited creation of video/some-audio including Captions he felt would be helpful in misleading the public to believe that Chinedu V. Okobi “He was still breathing when the Sheriff Deputies turned him over to the AMR people.” He takes it a step further and said it was several minutes after AMR had him. If several means 3 minutes that would be around the 21:00 in his video. Wagstaffe does not tell you what time in the video that transfer of responsibility occurred.
Wagstaffe also fails to identify CIVILIAN CSO Joseph Gonzales 6:26 mark who was physically involved in the takedown of Mr. Okobi. It was Illegal for him to be involved. “He had multiple red/brown stains located on his person from the altercation.”
You can see him in action at the 7:18 mark when several deputies get pepper sprayed. Wagstaffe’s Caption at 7:22 mark “A deputy attempts to subdue Okobi with pepper spray but mistakenly hits his fellow deputies and sergeant.” Joesph Gonzales is not a San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy, Wagstaffe knows that. He doesn’t identify the deputy, Why? Wagstaffe’s Expert Jeffrey Martin says Deputy Wang did it. There are 5 deputies and 1 CSO that makes 6 people involved. Three of them got sprayed, that leaves two deputies, Deputy DeMartini’s statement rules him out. The person who did the spraying said “I did, I did that.” Jamie Draper has access to voice recognition software it should be simple to identify who said those words. It’s one of two people Deputy Wang or CSO Civilian Gonzales.
Wagstaffe & Bolanos only identify the 5 deputies Why? It was Illegal for CSO Joseph Gonzales to be involved that’s why.
Wagstaffe fails to put a caption at the 10:57 mark. Deputy DeMartini Tampering with Evidence
Partial Video of March 1, 2019 Press Conference KPIX CBS SF
I attended the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Press Conference on March 1, 2019. At the -12:02 mark I asked Steve Wagstaffe “After Mr. Okobi stopped breathing, By putting him in a seated position did his head not go forward and stop his breathing?”
Steve Wagstaffe responded “It did not.” “The belief was not.” “That did not occur.” Because they continued to check for the breathing.
“But he was breathing and he had a pulse at that time.”
“He actually uttered some words.” Really? What were the uttered words, who heard them, and what time on the video? No caption for this important assertion.
The Video Wagstaffe produced shows otherwise at 10:27 mark.
A thought for the readers, Steve Wagstaffe and his TEAM and Sheriff Carlos Bolanos have had all of the data for 5 months. It was withheld from reporters and the public for 5 months.
Effective May 1, 2019 ALL E-MAILS WILL BE DELETED THAT ARE 90 DAYS OLD AND OLDER.
Welcome to San Mateo County.
By. Michael G. Stogner
Update 2/25/2019 San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy has informed me that the vehicle will be removed by 2/26/2019. The County will work with the Insurance company for reimbursement. Thank You Mr. Callagy for taking care of this matter in a timely manner.
Yesterday afternoon 2/15/2019 this vehicle was spotted on the beach about 1,000 yards north of Montana Beach. Waiting for the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office to identify the vehicle by its VIN number.
Update: “This was a vehicle that was reported stolen out of Hayward. No relation to any missing person cases from our county.” Rosemerry Blankswade SMCSO Public Information Officer.
Photos by Dan Stegink.
Car located where red circle is. Inaccessible area 200 foot cliffs.