Category Archives: Carole Groom

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

Did San Mateo County Adult Protective Services, Protect & Advocate Properly for Firoz Jaffer? Elder Abuse Victim.

 

October 15, 2017 3:56AM Firoz Jaffer called 911 to report an assault on him and his grandchildren by his son Zainali Jaffer. Hillsborough Police responded within minutes to the home at 1026 Lancaster Lane, Hillsborough, California. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Firoz Jaffer was Beaten when he tried to stop his son from sexually assaulted his 3 year old son in the back yard. Here is a description from a press release by the District Attorney’s Office about one of the Court Dates.

Peo. v. Zainali Jaffer (2-16-88), Hillsborough Police Department 664- 288.7(B)/288(B)(1)/245(A)(4)/273A(A)-Two Counts/243(B) Misdemeanor October 15, 2017; Defendant Is 29 Year Old Hillsborough Resident And Former CEO Of Mobile Advertising Company “Vungle”; At 3:56AM Sunday Morning Police Were Dispatched To Defendant’s Home In 1000 Block Of Lancaster Road In Hillsborough; They Were Met By Defendant’s Father Who Was Cut And Bleeding In Face From Being Beaten By Defendant; Father Directed Police To Backyard Where Officers Found The Naked Defendant On Top Of And Sexually Assaulting His Three Year Old Son Who Was Screaming; Officers Approached And Defendant Started Choking The Victim With His Legs; The Defendant Ignored Orders To Stop And Kept Choking The Child; Officers Had To Use Taser To Control The Defendant; The Defendant Continued To Resist The Officers And Spat At The Sergeant; The Officers Determined That Defendant Had Also Punched And Struck His One Year Old Daughter As Well As The Three Year Old Son And Beat His Father When The Father Tried To Intervene; 17-NF-012415-A (DDA Sharon K. Cho) 

-The case was set in SSF Felony Court, Dept. 9, Judge Stephanie G. Garratt, for the preliminary hearing. The defense written section 1050 motion to continue the hearing in order to conduct further investigation and preparation and based on a new attorney added to the defense was granted without prosecution objection. The case was continued to January 31, 2018 9:00 for the preliminary hearing with a 90 minute estimate. This will be the second setting of the preliminary hearing date since the initial felony arraignment on October 17, 2017. The defendant’s father failed to appear in court despite the fact he was served with a subpoena. The defense attorney represented the father returned to his home in England. At the request of the prosecution, the court issued a $25,000 bench warrant for the witness’s arrest. The defendant remains out of custody on $300,000 bail bond (posted on October 26, 2017). The defense attorney is Daniel Olmos (retained). 

My question is did APS offer and provide all the services needed for him to be safe and have an advocate to explain the legal process for example “It is Illegal for you to leave the Country after you have been served a subpoena.” You are the key witness besides the 3 police officers and the body camera videos etc.

Michael Callagy should Audit San Mateo County on this case, including CPS.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Attorney Generals Office, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, CPS, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Superior Court, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

Coastal Commission a Tax Payer Story.

LA Times 9/14/2018

Coastal officials let off the hook
MARK VARGAS was fined $13,600 for rule violations. But taxpayers, not he and four other guilty coastal officials, will foot the bill — and that was never in doubt. (David Royal For The Times)
STEVE LOPEZ
Ever since five current and former California coastal commissioners were found guilty this spring of breaking rules designed to ensure fairness and transparency, one question has remained unanswered:
Who’s going to pay for their sins?
We now have the answer.
Any guesses?
Walk over to a mirror, take a good look and reach for your wallet.
We just got stuck with a bill of roughly $1 million because five people chose not to follow easily understandable rules meant to ensure that their private meetings were fairly and fully reported before they voted on beach projects. And if that’s not insulting enough, try this:
There was never any doubt as to who would pay if they were found guilty, not that anyone let us in on that little detail.
And here’s the irony:
In a lawsuit over conversations that took place out of public view, a pretrial decision was made by the Coastal Commission — also out of public view — to indemnify the commissioners against liability for payment if they lost.
“The law entitles the commissioners to representation by the state absent malice, fraud or corruption,” said a Coastal Commission statement released late Thursday afternoon by spokeswoman Noaki Schwartz. “This Commission earlier agreed to indemnify the defendants to the full extent provided by law.”
The thinking behind that decision was that the commissioners, who claimed they did no wrong, were just trying their best to do their jobs as public servants, so defending them should be a public expense.
But a judge didn’t buy their claim of total innocence. So former commissioners Steve Kinsey, Wendy Mitchell and Martha McClure were fined $30,300, $7,100 and $2,600, respectively, by a San Diego County Superior Court judge in a case that went to trial early this year and has just concluded.
They won’t pay a nickel.
Current commissioners Mark Vargas and Erik Howell were fined $13,600 and $3,500.
They won’t pay a dime.
The judge also tapped them for $959,000 in attorney’s fees and court costs.
But we’re picking up that bill, too.
“This is unbelievable,” former Coastal Commission lawyer Ralph Faust said.
With indemnification going in, Faust said, the accused commissioners couldn’t lose.
“They got a defense on the theory they were innocent,” he said, “and indemnification in case it turned out they were guilty.”
“Oh, what a charade,” said Kathryn Burton, a retired attorney and president of Spotlight on Coastal Corruption, which filed suit against the commissioners in 2016 alleging hundreds of rules violations. “This means that this could be done for anyone, not just coastal commissioners, and it sets a horrible precedent. And I really question the legality of it.”
The suit came about because in California, decisions on coastal development and land use are a game of money, power and access. Although the coastal commissioners perform quasi-judicial duties, they’re allowed to have private conversations with parties prior to ruling on projects.
Most of these conversations are with proponents of projects rather than opponents, often through well-paid and politically connected lobbyists.
There’s an easy way to avoid shady business. Just outlaw these private communications. But powerful forces have managed to keep them in place, even though it’s not always possible for the public to know precisely what was discussed over dinner or drinks.
The Times exposed dozens of cases of commissioners failing to make full accounts of conversations, turning in the reports late, not turning them in at all or letting lobbyists write the accounts of what was discussed.
And I don’t buy the defense’s argument that the real problem was a lousy filing system and no clear education on the rules of private, or ex parte, meetings.
By early indications, the $1 million in costs could get carved out of an already tight Coastal Commission budget of about $28 million. If so, that could mean layoffs and less protection of the coast. In other words, we just keep getting sand kicked in our faces. The only good to come of this was that commissioners have been put on notice, going forward, that we’re watching their every move. And some better commissioners have filled the seats of those who left.
From the beginning, the decision to defend the accused commissioners was controversial because they, not the agency they served, were sued as individuals. Faust, the former agency lawyer, questions the attorney general’s decision to defend the commissioners at all.
“It seemed to me they should have walked away from this in the first place,” Faust said. “If commissioners were violating the law, they were doing so not as commissioners, but outside the scope of the law.”
Cory Briggs, Spotlight’s attorney, said Thursday he never imagined anyone but the commissioners would be held accountable for fines and fees assessed against them as individuals. He sued them, not the state agency. Briggs argued from the beginning that the accused commissioners knew the rules and chose to ignore them.
In a head-slapping development last week, the lawyer arguing the case for Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra seemed to agree that the defendants were not public officials, but private citizens.
“Here, the Attorney General’s office was representing private individuals sued in their personal capacity,” the deputy attorney general wrote in a convoluted attempt to have Spotlight cover the state’s defense costs of $649,000.
Like I said in my Wednesday column, if they were private individuals, the attorney general shouldn’t have been defending them on our dime.
The state’s justification for asking defense costs to be paid by Spotlight was that this was a victory for the commissioners, not a loss, since most charges were dismissed and millions in potential fines were avoided. And the attorney general has already appealed, so we could get stuck with more bills.
This was no victory.
This was a dark chapter in Coastal Commission history and a rebuke of arrogant commissioners who didn’t take seriously their duty to protect the coast and the public.
The final insult was sticking us with the bill.
steve.lopez@latimes.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Michael G. Stogner, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

James “Jim” McGee Arrested for Domestic Violence, That’s all after a 17 hr. Standoff.

Update: Sept. 24, 2018 There is No Domestic Violence Charge and only one count of 148(a)(1) PC. There is still No Case number on the Court Calendar. The residents of San Mateo County should be demanding an Audit of the District Attorney’s Office and include the County Domestic Violence Protocol, was it followed, Who is responsible for enforcing it. What about the Victim?

Update: Todays 9/12/2018 Court date has been continued for 2 weeks. Next Court date or cording to the DA’s Office is 9/27/2018. Still NO charges filed by the District Attorney’s Office, not even the Domestic Violence charge he was arrested for.

August 9, 2018 at 2:00AM the Redwood City Police Department responded to a 911 call reporting Domestic Violence with injuries. When police arrived they found a woman in the front of the home located on Windsor Way. She was taken to the Hospital. The police, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Swat Team, a Helicopter and who knows how many first responders spent the next 17 plus hours communicating with one of their own to get him to comply with the orders to come outside. The entire neighborhood was effected by this military response to a former RWCPD Swat Team Officer refusing to comply with orders to come out. Some neighbors were forced to stay in place and some left their homes for safety.

If you think over 17 hours for one of their own seems like a long time you are correct, but that is nothing, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe and Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti have refused to file any charges as of Sept 10, 2018. You talk about favorable treatment, think about having over 30 days to communicate with the victim to have her really think about her future and what’s best for her and the alleged abuser. Financial considerations of course. This is where the Fixer shines, behind the scenes he communicates the reality to the victim, she will never win in court in SMC. It won’t be the first time a victim has heard that statement before.

San Mateo County has a Domestic Violence Protocol it includes an Emergency Protective Order, a 30 day Court appearance to convert the EPO to a Restraining Order. I asked the DA’s Office the status of the EPO & RO here is the response.

Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
To:Michael Stogner
Sep 10 at 11:42 AM

Mr. Stogner:  No charges have been filed yet.  Yes, his court appearance is still set for the 12th.  I won’t be commenting on the facts of the case until a filing decision is made.  You may feel free to reach out to me daily to see if/when charges are filed.

Karen

From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 11:31 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
Subject: RE: James A. McGee Charges Update

Hello Karen,

Is his court date still set for the 12th.

Was there an EPO issued? and was it converted to a R.O.?

What are the charges?

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

Note: Sept. 12. 2018 I went to the court house James McGee’s name was not on the docket at all. Usually all parties come to court on the official court date and than continue. That is not what happened in this case.

Chief Deputy Karen Guidotti should explain to the residents of San Mateo County this statement. “Yes, his court appearance is still set for the 12th.”   

The District Attorney’s Office and the Redwood City Police Department should be audited.

My reporting is facts based if anyone would like to comment please do.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

 




 

1 Comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, John Maltbie, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ramsey Saad R.I.P., Redwood City Police Department, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Silicon Valley up to it Worst Tricks. Fires Tim Kentley-Klay.

San Mateo County residents should let all of Silicon Valley know that this behavior is not appreciated.

I think these tweets tell the real story of what a leader is. Foster City should be speaking up.

Tim Kentley-Klay

@TimKentleyKlay

Be full of wonder …

Pinned Tweet

Cheers to the most legendary crew, ever.

  1. “I can’t seem to find the right words for what’s happened. Please know that the impact you’ve had here, on all of us, is incredible and irreplaceable. I’m grateful to know you and to have worked with you. Thinking of you through all of this.”

  2. “Tim, we have been friends since the call from Melbourne and still are in my book. I have worked in an industry filled with so called visionaries for 25 years. The lesson I have learned is there are less than I can count on one hand. You’re on the hand by far.”

  3. “You’ll always be my favourite boss. Even when you’re not my boss.”

  4. “Your firing is shady. I came to zoox because I was thrilled to work on the project you created. I heard you say often: “we are doing it because it’s the right thing to do.” A leader choosing actions that are right instead of easy/cheap is rare and you were an excellent example.”

  5. “It’s weird driving in today remembering that yesterday actually happened. Thank you for treating everyone at Zoox, from coordinators to VPs, as your friend. I’m grateful for having had almost 2 years working for you… this sucks and my heart is breaking”

  6. “Hi Tim, I’m sure you are getting a flood of messages right now. I just want to let you know that I enjoyed every moment of getting to work with you. You are a visionary and the lessons I’ve learned under your mentorship will stay with me for life.“

  7. “Hey Tim. It feels strange to reach out to you like this. I really liked working with you, for Zoox. I would not be here wouldn’t you have had that vision and iron will to make it a reality. It’s you who allowed me to make this amazing journey and change in my life possible.”

  8. “I am not sure how I am supposed to work for a company where my creative mentor for 3 years, no longer works.”

  9. “Tim… Its been just a few months since I joined the Zoox family… Honestly, you don’t know how much you’ve inspired me just with your talks.. Especially after listening to you during Zoox connect, I strongly believed. I sincerely wish you’re back with us to keep inspiring us“

  10. “Tim, I’m not done making magic. Let me know when it’s time for the next adventure. I’ll follow you into battle anywhere.”

  11. “W T F — B.L.”

  12. “So grateful to having been at leastpart of the ride🙏🏼 I have huge respect for you. You are a truly visionary, not on par with obviously the part of the company that could make such decision. Sending you lots of supporting energy💙🙏🏼✨💫💛

  13. “Hi Tim, I am deeply shocked about the news at Zoox. Sadly people making this decision are not acting from their heart or passion, but exactly like you said, from fear. So sorry for the rest of the awesome crew and for the future if Zoox.”

  14. “Dude I still can’t believe that happened today. My thoughts are with you man, this really bites. I’m still in shock. I’m really sorry to see it play out this way”

  15. “Horrified at the news tim. We’re here if you need us. You are the core of Zoox. Madness.”

  16. “I still remember the day when you interviewed me on the park benches next to the firehouse. You have been an inspiration and a positive force in my life. Please let us know if you need anything.”

  17. “Tim…. Its been a total joy working with you! I’ll keep pursuing your vision 100%. It and you are the reason I joined and continue to work my ass off. Keep on keeping on, brother.”

  18. “It’s been a pleasure working with you, I was enamored by the idea of Zoox and it was why I chose to join the wild ride”

  19. “Hey Tim, I was shocked to hear the news, I can’t imagine what it must feel like. I’m certain you will land on your feet – your vision, intellect, and determination got you and us this far.”

  20. “Well that’s a load of cosmic rubbish. Sometimes I hate Silicon Valley.”

  21. “Could the board rehire you in three months because they can’t do Zoox without you? Could you change your last name again, wear a different hat, then you submit your application and resume to talent@zoox.com?”

  22. “Glad you’re ok and surrounded by your followers. Nobody will ever replace you.”

  23. “TIM!! 😭😭😭 I’m so sorry. I’m in shock. I can’t even imagine how things are for you. I hope you are ok. Please let me know if I can do ANYTHING!”

  24. “My dear son, no matter what happens I am so proud of you and so honoured that you are my son. I am 100% rock solid with you and for you. With all my love, Daddo xxx”

  25. “Please let me know if I can do anything for you! I will not be able to believe it! I am sorry! We are on the way!”

  26. “Sad news – it was your vision that attracted everyone and made Zoox what it is.”

  27. “Crew’s on their way. I’ll head back up this evening and come by… where ever you’ll be at.”

  28. “I have no words. Just got off the call. You dreamed up this company, you built this company, you brought me into a role that was super close to you and trusted me to see it through. The creative team is your family and I’m here to chat, drink, etc with you when you’re ready.”

  29. “Hi, I’m sorry about what is happening, I wish I could be there with you. I’ll be back in town Sunday, let me know when you want to catch up soon.”

  30. “There is no point in putting a disco ball in the elevator now. If you’re not the CEO of Zoox – nobody will have as much fun. I am in complete shock and sad. Are you ok?”

  31. “Would love to grab a beer with you at any time Tim. You are a true visionary. A sad day for sure.”

  32. “For what it is worth, you were the reason I came to Zoox. I would love to work with you again. Please let me know if there is anything that I can do or help with in the future.”

  33. Drinks at my house 5:30pm team.

    By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Michael G. Stogner, Silicon Valley, Those Who Matter, Tim Kentley-Klay, Victim's Advocate, Zoox

San Mateo County’s District Attorney Office needs a Performance Audit.

 

 

Update since this article first published Defense Attorney Patrick Clancy filed a motion to seal the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts of January 31, 2018 Motion granted by supposedly a SMC Judge. I say that because the DA doesn’t know who signed it.

Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>

To:

Michael Stogner,

Steve Wagstaffe

Sep 4 at 9:02 AM

Mr. Stogner:  I do not know who signed the order.  As you stated, there is no name typed below the signature, and the signature does not clearly show the judge’s name.

Karen Guidotti

 

From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>; Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>
Subject: Name of Judge who sealed PH of Zain Jaffer

 

Good morning Karen and Steve

Please tell me the name of the judge who signed the Seal order. I am unable to recognize it from my copy.

We have compared it to the entire rooster, It would be nice if the name was printed below the signature.

 

Thank You

 

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

Performance Audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States.

This is not a new idea former Town of Atherton Finance Director John Johns R.I.P. made this recommendation in 2010. It was a good recommendation then and is now.

With the Zain Jaffer x Vungle CEO case 7 felonies including oral copulation of a child and assault of a Hillsborough Police Officer simply disappearing from the legal process after a private meeting between the District Attorney’s Office and Mr. Jaffer’s attorneys.  DA Steve Wagstaffe believed he was guilty of these charges from day one for almost 8 months, right up until the private meeting at the District Attorney”s Office which included a presentation of the entire defense. That is what a trial is for.

Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti became the Judge and Jury in the Zain Jaffer case.

How many cases in the last 10 years has a Defense Team made a private presentation at the DA’s office?

How many of those presentations resulted in the District Attorney filing a motion to dismiss the entire case?

Judges are the last layer of Oversight for the People of California. When they see a suspicious or questionable motion from the District Attorney’s Office they should not only deny it, they should report it to the State Bar. This motion by Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti was both suspicious & questionable. Now we just have to find out Why?

Why did Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt grant the motion to dismiss? There already was a Preliminary Hearing that determined there was enough evidence for every charge to move forward. She could have denied the motion, Wagstaffe could have tested his evidence on the Grand Jury to get an indictment if he thought his case was weak. Instead he choose to dismiss the entire case and Judge Garratt assisted him in that effort.

* Those Who Matter* email from Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, he was noticing the residents of San Mateo County that there is a special group of people above the law.

e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM

Greg and Carlos

Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time. To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the modern media’s efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday’s news and irrelevant by tomorrow.

My positive thoughts are out there for both of you.

Steve

For those readers who don’t know this e-mail was written to San Mateo County Sheriff and UnderSheriff days after they both were caught and detained as Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including at least one child. April 21, 2007 FBI Sting Operation Dollhouse, Las Vegas Nevada.

The Matthew Graves (also 30 yr. old man) case should be looked at, He was sentenced to 34 years in prison, 4 of those years are for violating a Restraining Order. This should be compared to Mr. David Bohannon being arrested twice by the Menlo Park Police Department. The second time was for violating a Restraining Order, The exact same thing Matthew Graves got 4 years in prison for. The difference is Matthew Graves got charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. Mr. Bohannon no criminal case number filed, no court appearances, no trial, extracted from the legal process.

SMDJ Article Matthews Graves

The Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County should order and pay for the Audit.

San Mateo County Supervisors contact info:

By Michael G. Stogner

4 Comments

Filed under #MeToo, #San Mateo County, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Citizens Access TV, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon Stephanie Garratt, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark Church, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Sexual Harassment, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

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