Category Archives: Carlos G. Bolanos

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

 

This is a very good article, Thank You LATIMES,

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

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

9/23/2018 LATIMES

Few reports against police upheld

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

By James Queally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oakland police did not respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lopez said the ordeal had a lasting effect.

Leave a comment

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

San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando is a Brady Officer at the very least, Criminal at most.

Lt. Andrew Armando is currently in charge of the Internal Affairs of the Sheriff’s Office. That is a bad thing. He is dishonest and has committed criminal acts in the Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Criminal case. In order for him to be convicted of a crime, San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Steve Wagstaffe, Karen Guidotti, John Warren would have to file charges and currently they are refusing to do so. Who else is aware of the criminal conduct allegations filed May 1, 2018 in the Lopez case. Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, many Sheriff Deputies, San Mateo County Counsel, Judges include Hon. Judge George Miriam, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum.

The public is counting on, hoping that all people in position of Authority will do their job, which is to protect the public not a small group of “Those Who Matter.”

Why are the people mentioned above protecting a “Dirty Cop”? They have all known since May 1, 2018 of the allegations. What actions have they taken besides delaying?

A recent DA Steve Wagstaffe quote: “I still believe that one of the key components of a good criminal justice system is faith that judges do the right thing,” 

The same can be said for the Sheriff Office and the District Attorney’s Office do the right thing.

The Sunny Day Murder case had 80 Search Warrants alone.

How many cases or Search Warrants has Lt. Andrew Armando been involved in since 2013? A Brady Officer can not testify for good reason.

Juan Lopez’s first Attorney Stuart Hanlon to reporter Katie Utehs 2/23/2015:

“This interview is going to make it harder to practice there, but it’s the truth and I’m willing to deal with it because I think this man is being falsely charged.”

Mr. Hanlon is right as of today 8 Felony charges have been dismissed. San Mateo County Government leadership could care less that the DA’s Office and Sheriff’s Office is dishonest. Look no further then Good and Concerned Citizen Therese Dyer who has been reporting corruption in those offices for many years and the Supervisors refuse to conduct an Audit.

Elected Official Jack Hickey is the only SMC politician to question the DA’s Office.

Here is the Lopez Motion with the criminal allegations.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carlos G. Bolanos, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Jordan Boyd, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Department, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Tony Serra, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando to Testify.

Real life is much more exciting then reality t.v. Please join me.

Update: Continued to October 3, 2018

Hon. Judge Mark Forcum continued this motion for the third time which makes the 4th time it has been continued since filed May 1, 2018. He claimed his court had a murder trial going in it. The Lopez Motion will not take very much time at all 2 hours max and most likely 30 minutes should do. One star witness SMCSO Lt. Andrew Armando he will either take the fifth or testify he committed a Felony. Those who Matter don’t want that to happen before another case set for September 10, 2018 goes to trial, reason being as soon as Lt. Armando has his day in court the other case gets DISMISSED. It’s not good when Search Warrants are obtained by a criminal act.

Monday August 27, 2018 9:00AM Courtroom 2H Hon. Judge Mark Forcum will preside in the former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case which is approaching 4 yrs in SMC’s criminal justice system. You might recall District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe holding a press conference charging Deputy Lopez with smuggling a cellphone and drugs into the jail to a gang member inmate. Mr. Wagstaffe did not hold a press conference when a judge who finally heard the DA’s case threw out those charges, the DA and the Sheriff’s Office knew there was no evidence that connected Juan P. Lopez to those charges. That didn’t stop them or even slow them down. You would think that would cause a normal person to review/audit their own work to answer the question, How did we get it so wrong? Not the case.

Lt. Andrew Armando has been promoted twice since he obtained the Search Warrant to get his hands on Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s cellphone. He was Detective on the date he committed perjury to Hon. Judge George Miriam. After that he was promoted to Sergeant and a short time later promoted to Lt. now in charge of Internal Affairs.

Juan P. Lopez and his supporters knew from the very beginning that Armando’s sworn statement to the judge was a lie. 4 years later he will be on the witness stand.

The residents of San Mateo County should ask how many Search Warrants was SMCSO Detective Andrew Armando and District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd involved in since 2013. I know of one case 80 Search Warrants were issued. Think about that when an entire case is started with a lie, the amount of suffering caused and many guilty pleas to end the nightmare of the legal process in SMC.

May 1, 2018 Filing with perjury allegations.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Jordan Boyd, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe hasn’t satisfied Zain Jaffer.

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe is talking more about the Zain Jaffer former Vungle executive found by police straddling his 3 year old son while fully naked in the backyard of his Hillsborough home at 4:00AM. Now 17 days after the entire case was dismissed without a preliminary hearing or any witnesses testifying under oath, Mr. Wagstaffe feels he has not done enough to satisfy Mr. Jaffer. Here is his latest PR statement to SFGATE, he did not send this to me co-owner of San Mateo County News. Note: Mr. Wagstaffe has refused to identify the alleged prescription medications that caused Mr. Jaffer to be Not Conscious while assaulting several people, resulting in 7 F’s & 1M charge. The DA’s Office quickly eliminated one felony charge of Attempted Murder.

The Charges that remained up until July 2, 2018:

Charge #1 Attempted Oral Copulation or Sexual Penetration with a Child 10 years of age or younger. PC 664.288.7(b) Felony

Charge #2 Forcible Lewd Act Upon Child, PC288 (b) Felony

Charge #3 Assault by Means Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury, PC 245 (A) Felony

Charge #4 Assault by Means Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury, PC 245 (A) Felony

Charge #5 Child Abuse, PC 273 (A) Felony

Charge #6 Child Abuse PC 273 (A) Felony

Charge # 7 Battery Upon a Peace Officer & Designated Person, PC 243 (b) Misdemeanor

SFGATE 7/19/2018

EDITOR’S NOTE: After the publication of this story, officials at the San Mateo County district attorney’s office said they wanted to clarify that “we do not believe that there was any sexual conduct by Mr. Jaffer that evening and for this reason we dismissed the sexual abuse charges. The physical injury charges were separately dismissed because we believe that the injuries were the result of Mr. Jaffer being in a state of unconsciousness caused by prescription medication.”

Here is the complete e-mail from DA Steve Wagstaffe to SFGATE

Breaking News Reporter Work: 415-777-7096 Cell: 805-450-7138

From: Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>Date: Thursday, July 19, 2018 at 8:26 AM
To: “Stone, Erin” <Erin.Stone@sfchronicle.com>Cc: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>Subject: Zainali Jaffer Case

Hi Erin,

On another and unrelated topic, I wanted to request a correction of a statement made by one of my prosecutors, Deputy District Attorney Sharon Cho, on the Zainali Jaffer case in your article on July 3, 2018 discussing the reasons for the dismissal of the case. You did not misquote her at all, but her statement has been misconstrued by some in the community. This is my requested correction.

The earlier quotes by Deputy District Attorney Sharon Cho appear to have been misinterpreted by some. We wish to clarify that we do not believe that there was any sexual conduct by Mr. Jaffer that evening and for this reason we dismissed the sexual abuse charges. The physical injury charges were separately dismissed because we believe that the injuries were the result of Mr. Jaffer being in a state of unconsciousness caused by prescription medication.

Thank you for your consideration of this correction. Steve

The FDA should issue a National Warning if the above statement is true.

Question to think about, Why would the District Attorney’s Office feel the need or obligation to clarify anything for Mr. Jaffer? He was facing life in prison if found guilty of the 7 felony counts. Steve Wagstaffe solved that for him.

Question? Steve Wagstaffe says “we do not believe.” That is why we have Juries, what did the evidence prove? If you didn’t believe it why did you charge him in the first place?

What could have possibly happened from October 15, 2017 to July 2, 2018 to cause this entire criminal case to simply disappear? And now 17 days later Steve Wagstaffe feels some pressure to make more public comments. What would cause that?

What about the 2 CHILDREN? CPS took them that morning, have they returned them because of Steve Wagstaffe’s actions?

Welcome to San Mateo County

By Michael G. Stogner

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, California Bar Association, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, John Beiers, Letters to Editors, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Sexual Harassment, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos’s slow response in Angela Hernandez missing person case.

SJM-L-HERNANDEZ-0714

Update 7/18/18 : Medical Condition Hernandez would later learn from doctors that she was suffering from a brain hemorrhage during the first few days after the crash. She also had four broken ribs, fractures in both of her collarbones, a collapsed lung, ruptured blood vessels in her eyes and extreme sunburn on her hands, feet and face.

Update: Interview of Chad & Chelsea Moore the couple who found Angela Hernandez.

Update: Angela Hernandez has been found alive near Big Sur. A couple walking on the beach reportedly discovered her wrecked Jeep nearly 200 feet down a cliff. Big Sur Fire, the CHP and Monterey County Sheriff responded to the couple’s 911 call.
They say she appeared to have a shoulder injury and was talking and could walk.
She says she has been there since July 6, That is 7 days and nights.

Another Interview of Chad & Chelsea Moore

Update: Angela Hernandez has posted these pictures of the wreck on her Facebook.

37185831_864073377118688_7255929659806711808_n37185176_864073483785344_7371583186238701568_n

Here are some facts Angela Hernandez was last known to be at the Safeway Store located at 70 N.Cabrillo Hwy, Half Moon Bay on the evening of July 5, 2018. She planned to sleep in her 2011 White Jeep Patriot with Oregon Plates 436KSQ. The next morning at 7:54 AM a text was sent from her phone to her sister “about to start driving” her destination was Lancaster California about 6 hours away. About 8 hours later her cell phone pings at 700 Hwy 1 Davenport California. She was not seen in Davenport, She was last seen in San Mateo County. There are news reports of videos showing her vehicle in Monterey County it turns out the “video of a similar car driving by” MCSO doesn’t identify it was her jeep and no evidence of Angela in the similar car that drove by. So Angela could still be in San Mateo County. There was no Amber Alert issued by SMCSO. Cell Phone data should have compared Cell Tower Pings of all cell phones at the same towers at the same time to see if there was a match. It has now been 7 days since Angela has been seen or heard from.

Just as his staff was quick to take the life (within 20 seconds of arriving on scene) of Hispanic teenager Yanira Serrano-Garcia, in 2014, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos is now slow to find another Hispanic girl, 23 year old Angela Hernandez, gone missing in his jurisdiction. Rather than cause an all out search for the missing girl and commit the full resources of his agency, newly elected Sheriff Bolanos seems content to palm the matter off to a neighboring jurisdiction, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, leaving the girl’s relatives to search. In fact, his agency has now announced it ended its search for her, ABC-7 July 11, 2018 9:07AM San Mateo County Sheriff Office “Search Party Cancelled.” The next day the SMCSO put this video up.

Should San Mateo County residents expect more from Sheriff Bolanos, a controversial figure who had previously been detained by the FBI, in 2007, in a Las Vegas human trafficking investigation? After all, the trafficking of women does connote a certain contempt for women, devaluing their individual worth as human beings. Or is this again a case of the missing youth being a person of color (Hispanic) versus a person who mattersjust as in the Yanira case?

Has Sheriff Bolanos mobilized the full resources of his agency to find this woman -brought in additional shifts of personnel; called a Phase Three Tac Alert, bringing in additional personnel from neighboring San Mateo County law enforcement agencies; used his agency’s plane; utilized his search & rescue unit; opened up a coast-side command post; methodically searched all coast-side roads; assigned a ranking member of his agency to run the search and keep the community updated versus one lowly detective; etc.?

Has San Mateo County learned NOTHING from the Richard Moss tragedy?

And what is his agency’s solve rate for major crimes -it seldom arrests & books anyone, in comparison to its peers?

Aside from this, where is San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, the sheriff turned supervisor, whose constituents coast-side residents are? Why hasn’t he weighed in, with a commitment to find the youth to include adding to the reward offered by her relatives? Surely, he sees the need for vision and leadership, in the matter -remember, Sheriff Bolanos left the San Bruno Police Department to coordinate and manage the YouTube facility active shooter, several months ago, while he took a back seat role.

Where was and is the leadership San Mateo County residents should expect of Bolanos with a staff of over 800 and in excess of a 180 million dollar budget?

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, Angela Hernandez, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Michael G. Stogner, San Mateo County, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Supervisors, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Mark Church How many Ballots?

Update June 22, 2018

San Mateo County had at this time 44.3% turnout with 172,076 ballots counted.

Election Results

June 16, 2018 San Mateo County Elections Office headed by Mark Church has never published on the County’s website how many ballots it had received. Today 11 days after the election the advertising business SMDJ has published that 45,000 ballots remain to be counted. Also News that it mailed out 400,000 ballots thats about 11,000 more than the official registered voter count. Not everybody received the ballot in the mail. Former SMC Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez didn’t receive his, he called to have another mailed to him and was told “NO” Go vote in person. So he did while serving on Jury Duty he went to the 555 Building after identifying himself he was told “Your Vote has been cancelled.

Also missing from the website are the Write-In candidates. This year was a Historical Election Three candidates for Sheriff, one who has been running (forever) 3 years, one for 1 year and one for a month.

The last one was the President of the Deputy Sheriff Association DSA in 2007. He has reported to several reporters that he was ordered by Carlos Bolanos not to talk about or mention Operation Dollhouse. He was the Go-To guy on April 21, 2007 He received several phone calls from Las Vegas starting at 10:15PM that night. He has helped bring out the truth about what really happened that night.

Now today we wait.

Welcome to San Mateo County

by Michael G. Stogner

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Heinz Puschendorf, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark De Paula, Mark Melville, Michael G. Stogner, San Mateo County, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

UnderSheriff Trisha Sanchez Retired.

San Mateo County UnderSheriff Trisha Sanchez has retired as of June 6, 2018. That was 30 years to the day she started with the Sheriff’s Office. She was the first woman to serve as assistant sheriff in the Sheriff’s Office 150-year history. That also just happened to be  just one day after the election for Sheriff which looks like her boss Carlos Bolanos might be the elected Sheriff. There are still 70,000 votes to be counted. Trisha Sanchez was in Las Vegas on April 21, 2007 when her 2 bosses were caught and detained as customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including at least one child. She was also the decoy in a Sheriff Office Prostitution Sting in Redwood City in 1993 which netted San Mateo County Manager John Maltbie as a customer.

Best of Health and Luck to Trisha Sanchez in your retirement.

by Michael G. Stogner

1 Comment

Filed under #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Citizens Access TV, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Supervisors, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum