Category Archives: California Bar Association

“Unqualified trust relationship with this partner.” Hon. Judge Lisa Novak

By Michael G. Stogner

CarlosG.Bolanos

Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos

In a response to the Commission on Judicial Performance .

The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.

Somebody filed a complaint against Judge Novak because she notified all the Judges present at the June 20, 2017 Judges Meeting, She had made a finding that SMCSO Sergeant Michael E. Otte Perjured Himself in her courtroom.

The person or persons who filed the complaint was not concerned at all by the fact that a SMC Sheriff Sergeant would lie under oath in her court, the person and the CJP was only concerned that she informed all the Judges who attended.

She noted the close relationship between the Sheriffs Office and the Court and cited the need to have an unqualified trust relationship with this partner.

Lets look at this unqualified trust relationship with the Sheriff’s Office under the leadership of Carlos G. Bolanos.

In-Custody Homicide of Chinedu Okobi three False News Releases. Omitting 6th Sheriff Employee for starters.

San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Lou Aquino DUI arrested by RWCPD September 14, 2019 Sheriff Bolanos refuses to release the Booking Photo. Why?

San Mateo County former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case going for more than 5 years with the sole purpose to cause harm to him mentally and financially. The public might recall the big Press Conference claiming Nobody is above the law in San Mateo County and Charging Deputy Lopez with Smuggling a Cellphone and Drugs to a Hells Angel member in Jail. Sheriff Carlos Bolanos knew there was No Evidence to support those charges.

These are just three current examples unqualified trust relationship with the Sheriff’s Office under the leadership of Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos.

An older example when Carlos G. Bolanos was Undersheriff 2010 the Brave Female Deputy reporting the 46 San Mateo County Sheriff Male Employees receiving and sharing Porn and Rape Video on County Computers.

It is my experience that Judges in San Mateo County have allowed Sheriff Employees and District Attorney Employees and County Counsel Employees to lie/file false instruments and give False Testimony on a daily basis, this is the Norm it shouldn’t be.

I say you can’t possibly manage what you don’t measure.

Lets find out exactly what happened after Hon. Judge Lisa Novak made a finding that SMCSO Sergeant Michael E. Otte Perjured Himself in her courtroom.

Commission on Judicial Performance Report

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Brady List, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, Community Service Officer Joseph Gonzales, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, DDA Bryan Abanto, DOJ, Don Horsley, Evidence Tampering, Felony misappropriation of public money., First Chance, Government Hiding the Obvious, Governor of California, Grand Jury, Hon Stephanie Garratt, Hon. Judge George Miriam, Hon. Judge Gerald Bushwald, Hon. Judge Jeffrey R. Finnigan, Hon. Judge Lisa Novak, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Hon. Judge Robert Foiles, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, Hon.Judge Donald Ayoob, Illegal Search of Cellphone, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Joseph Charles, Judicial Misconduct, Kevin Mullins, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, NAACP, Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, Robert Fourcrault, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office Porn and Rape Video, Sean Gallagher, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell, SMCSO Michael E. Otte, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, SMCSO Sergeant Jacob Trickett, SMCSO Sergeant Lou Aquino, SMCSO Sgt. Irfan Zaidi, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Michael E. Otte Committed Perjury, Why wasn’t he charged? Selective Prosecution.

By Michael G. Stogner

On January 4 and 5, 2017, Hon. Judge Lisa Novak heard a motion to dismiss in People v. Rachel Quintana (No. 16-SM-001677) San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Michael E. Otte testified under oath that he did not take a video of the arrest on his cellphone. Another SMCSO Deputy NICHOLAS P. Kostielney on February 2, 2016 Filed a supplemental report after the arrest Kostielney stated that “no cellular telephones possessed any video footage of the incident.” The arrest date was August 28, 2015 so that gave Kostielney 5 months to make that statement. Filing a false police report is a crime.

As it would turn out a person at the arrest took out his cellphone and videoed Sgt. Otte videoing the arrest. Also Judge Novak’s Bailiff came up to her and reported that he had viewed the video Sgt. Otte just lied about under oath. Good Job to the bailiff.

January 20, 2017 at a Judges Meeting, Judge Lisa Novak informed the Court’s Judges that she had made a finding that SMCSO Sergeant Michael E. Otte Perjured Himself.

How many Judges attended the Judge’s Meeting and have known from that moment on that at least two San Mateo County Sheriff Employees committed perjury and did not make sure that the District Attorney’s Office Prosecute them. How many Attorneys at San Mateo County Counsel’s Office know this information. Finally how Supervisors of SMC and their staff know this information.

The D.A.’s office does in fact charge some people with perjury, 4 witnesses in the Sunny Day Murder trials as an example.

Also this relationship that Judge Novak shared should be broken up.

She noted the close relationship between the sheriffs office and the court and cited the need to have an unqualified trust relationship with this partner.

 

Judge are the safety net for the public, The public trust is at stake here they are counting on the judges to no allow Prosecutorial Misconduct, or Law Enforcement Misconduct or Misconduct by County Counsel. Why didn’t Judge Lisa Novak have Sheriff Sergeant Otte come back to court and explain why he used his cellphone to video an arrest in the first place and why did he just lie under oath in her court?

When San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeants, Deputies lie under oath in Courts the Jury tends to believe them as they should.

Note: Michael E. Otte is no longer employed by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Don Horsley, Evidence Tampering, Facebook, Google, Government Hiding the Obvious, Grand Jury, Hon. Judge Lisa Novak, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Judicial Misconduct, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff's Public Information Officer, SMC, SMCSO Deputy Nicholas P. Kostielney, SMCSO Michael E. Otte, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Are SMCDA Inspectors William Massey and John Warren on Administrative Leave during this Alleged Internal Investigation?

By Michael G. Stogner

January 7, 2020 San Mateo Counsel Attorney Joseph Charles filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas involving San Mateo County District Attorney Office Inspectors William Massey and John Warren. He claimed without offering any evidence to support it that the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office is investigating itself which as you can imagine if true at the very least is a Terrible Idea when you consider the Conflict of Interest. Attorney Charles refuses to say when the alleged Investigation started, and Who is conducting the investigation if in fact there is one at all. The simple reason I say that is an outside agency should be conducting that investigation to avoid the appearance of a Conflict of Interest. The give away in attorney Charles filing was that the Investigation is

recently commenced, is ongoing, and will not be completed until after the completion of the Defendants underlying criminal trial.”

The Defendant in this case is the forced to retire Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez and the underlying criminal trial has been in the court system for 5 years and 2 months. Most likely will not go to trial till July 2020. The alleged Investigation which has a No End In Site ETA should take a Maximum of 30 days to complete, they have had 73 days to do it so far.

thumbnail-2

San Mateo County District Attorney Chief Inspector John Warren

 

San Mateo County Counsel Office asked the Court to seal it’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas. Granted

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Citizen Journalist, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DOJ, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Illegal Search of Cellphone, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Joseph Charles, Judicial Misconduct, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County’s former District Attorney James P. Fox has Died.

By Michael G. Stogner

James P. Fox

 

James P. Fox was the District Attorney of San Mateo County for 27 years. He died yesterday Jan. 9, 2020 after a sudden illness he was 75 years old. He was one of the only District Attorneys in California to oppose the 3 Strikes Law.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, California Bar Association, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, James P. Fox, Michael G. Stogner, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, SMC

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?

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s Video and Data made public March 1, 2019

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Associated Press, Attorney Generals Office, AXON, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Brady List, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, City of San Carlos, Community Service Officer Joseph Gonzales, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Google, Grand Jury, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Burris, John Warren, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Marshall Wilson, Matthew Graves, Menlo Park Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams, NAACP, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sgt. Bob Pronske, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMCSO Captain Paul Kunkel, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, SMCSO Sgt. Irfan Zaidi, SMCSO Sgt. Weidner, Steve Wagstaffe, Susan Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yahoo

Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) gets low marks in Audit.

April 25, 2019
2016-137

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report of the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). CJP is the agency charged with investigating complaints about judicial misconduct and deciding whether to discipline California judges for violations of the code of judicial ethics, and our review found that CJP must address the following weaknesses:

  • It does not consistently take all reasonable steps when it investigates alleged misconduct.
  • Its structure and disciplinary processes do not align with best practices.
  • It has not worked sufficiently to increase its transparency and accessibility.

In about one-third of the cases we reviewed, we found that CJP’s investigators did not take all reasonable steps to determine the existence or extent of alleged misconduct, such as inappropriate demeanor or improper delegation of duties to court staff. These missed steps include not speaking with all relevant witnesses, not obtaining additional evidence, and not taking a broad approach to determining misconduct in light of a pattern of allegations. Furthermore, CJP’s structure—as a single entity that both investigates alleged judicial misconduct and makes decisions about the appropriate level of discipline—results in judges facing potential discipline from a body of commissioners that is privy to unfounded allegations of misconduct. CJP also delegates responsibility for evidentiary hearings on alleged misconduct to three judges appointed by the Supreme Court of California, a practice that falls short of the voters’ intent to increase the public’s role in judicial discipline with the passage of Proposition 190 in 1994. Finally, CJP has not taken steps to hold meetings that are open to the public or to accept electronically submitted complaints, despite decades of public scrutiny about its lack of transparency and inaccessibility.

CJP’s operations and structure must change significantly to address the issues that this audit revealed. CJP can change its internal policies to address concerns about the planning and supervision of its investigations. However, changes to CJP’s structure will require an amendment to the California Constitution and CJP will need to inform the Legislature about any related funding needs as it adjusts its practices.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
California State Auditor

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, California Bar Association, California State Bar, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, Governor of California, Grand Jury, Joe Sweeny, John Beiers, Judges, Judicial Misconduct, Kamela Harris, San Mateo County Superior Court, Susan Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers

LVMPD to a Citizen Journalist “Just because you have a website doesn’t mean your part of the Press.”

The above statement made at 1:41 minute mark in video. At the 11:00 mark they arrest the citizen journalist. This was at the Metro Press Conference.

This is the same Las Vegas Metro Police that did this to Jody L. Williams door at 9:30PM October 12, 2018. Claiming they just wanted to ask her a couple of questions. It’s also the same LVMPD that told Mark DePaula that they had nothing to do with the April 21, 2007 Operation Dollhouse Sting by the FBI which Detained/Transported UnderSheriff Carlos G. Bolanos according to Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf former President of the DSA.

thumbnail

When you see this door, think about Who and What, Jody L. Williams knows.

Dennis Hof R.I.P. & Antonio Pastini R.I.P.

Jody Loren Williams was charged in San Mateo County August 8, 2018 18SM009489

The entire case has been sealed. Why, it’s a Misdemeanor?

Arrest Warrant issued on October 2, 2018

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DOJ, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Illegal Search of Cellphone, Jody L. Williams, John Ullom, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kamela Harris, Kevin Mullins, Mark De Paula, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Brosnan, Mike Callagy, Ordinance 04430, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum