Salvador Sanchez has been identified as the off duty LAPD Officer who shot and killed Kenneth French. Shot both parents Russell and Paola French, who are in critical condition. It should be noted the LAPD and Corona Police Department have refused to identify Officer Salvador Sanchez for the last 5 days they still have not identified him. Credit goes to the reporters at the LATIMES.
The immediate releasing of the Costco Video and the Officers’ name is so important to Public Trust. For Five days we still don’t know How many shots were fired? Who was shot first? How many shots? Who was shot second? How many shots? Who’s was shot third? How many shots? Officer Salvador Sanchez did not claim he was fearful for his life. That came later from his attorney as it always does. Why did he shoot at all?
Why has Costco remained silent. They are not acting like a good neighbor or good citizen.
In San Mateo County last year Chinedu Okobi was killed on October 3, 2018 by 6 San Mateo County Sheriff Employees. Within hours of his death Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos and his PIO Rosemary Blankswade issued a False News Release that stated as fact “He immediately assaulted the Deputy.” Both knew that was a lie, they left that statement on the Sheriff’s website for 5 months. The videos were not released for 5 months, as soon as they were the public knew Sheriff Bolanos and the District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe (who supported the false statement) promoted the lie.
Costco release the video today. The public can handle the truth.
Michael G. Stogner
The law enforcement profession requires integrity and trust and an officer who lies violates that trust and tarnishes the integrity of the profession.
October 3, 2018 at 1:00 PM Millbrae, California, Chinedu Okoki a 36 year old man was walking down the sidewalk on El Camino Real. Within 10 minutes he was Tasered 7 times, sprayed in the face with O.C. spray as six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees were on top of him. He was completely limp, unconscious, and never made a sound again. He died there on the spot in the Custody of the Sheriff’s Office.
San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Zaidi was not one of the Six Sheriff Employees involved in the In-Custody Death of Chinedu Okobi. Nineteen days later, On October 22, 2018 he filed an Official Report with the District Attorney’s Office making knowingly false statements.
” I directed Deputy Lorenzatti to remove the metal handcuffs from the suspect which she did, and the suspect was placed on his back. The Fire Department and AMR promptly began CPR.”
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe on March 1, 2019 provided a video that he and his Team produced for the public it can be found on his website. The placing Chinedu Okobi on his back and CPR starts at the 18:50 mark. The video shows Deputy Lorenzatti did Not remove the handcuffs.
SMCSO Deputy Lorenzatti made an official statement on 10/04/2018 3:50 PM. to Inspector Eric Suzuki.
“They were like, well let’s get him on his back and start CPR, So then I, you know helped em, bring him to his back.
Question? “Okay and were his Handcuffs off at that point?”
Answer: No they were still on.
Eng. #37 Mazza Statement: “When decedent was lifted onto the gurney, a police officer cadet or trainee removed the Handcuffs from the decedents wrists.”
AMR #94 Retanubun Statement: “They put the decedent on to a “Mega Mover” when noticed the decedent still had handcuffs on.” “Saw police cadet nearby who assisted them with the removal of the Handcuffs.”
AMR #37 Uhland: “So they laid the decedent on his back with the Handcuffs still on his wrists.”
AMR #94 Pham: “Decedent was on his back with Handcuffs on when he arrived.”
AMR #37 Holman: “When they rolled the decedent over to remove the Handcuffs, she noticed several scrapes on his hands and a few small abrasion on his back.” “She was unsure if the injuries were there prior or if caused by the CPR application.”
According to Wagstaffe’ Video, Chinedu Okobi was placed on his back at 18:26 mark.
CPR starts at 18:50 mark with Handcuffs On and Hands behind his back.
Handcuffs Removed at 28:47 mark after almost 10 minutes of Chest Compressions.
What caused Sheriff Sgt. Zaidi to file this Bizarre False Official Statement?
LATIMES Article June 6, 2019
Note: 300 Deputies on the list. Sheriff Alex Villanueva, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.
Should deputies’ misconduct be disclosed to D.A.?
Justices seem split on ruling that bars sheriff from giving officers’ names to prosecutors.
By Maura Dolan and Maya Lau
The California Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over a ruling that barred the Los Angeles County sheriff from giving prosecutors the names of deputies who have committed misconduct.
During a hearing, the state high court weighed an appeal of a decision that prohibited the sheriff from giving the district attorney the names of deputies with a history of bad behavior, including lying, taking bribes, tampering with evidence, using unreasonable force or engaging in domestic violence.
By law, prosecutors are required to disclose to defendants exculpatory evidence, including information that could diminish the credibility of police officers who worked on a case.
Several justices suggested Wednesday that prosecutors need the information to fulfill their constitutional duty to disclose potentially exonerating information.
That position has been endorsed by defense lawyers, prosecutors and the California attorney general.
Justice Goodwin Liu noted that prosecutors ultimately bear liability for failing to disclose favorable evidence.
If the prosecution is unaware that such evidence exists, convictions — even valid convictions — may eventually be overturned because of a failure to disclose, he said.
“The prosecution can’t take an ostrich-like approach to this very important duty,” Liu said.
But Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggested that the Legislature, not the court, might want to take steps to ensure that exonerating information is disclosed to the defense.
She said one possible remedy was to give trial judges sealed lists of law enforcement officers who have a history of misconduct. The judges could review those lists privately in chambers to determine whether the officers’ records were relevant in the case and should be disclosed.
“Doesn’t delivering the list directly to the court under seal … meet the problem without intruding overtly on the officers’ privacy?” she asked.
Justice Ming W. Chin also repeatedly asked whether that path, if carved out by the Legislature or by the court in a future case, could resolve the problem.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit filed by the L.A. deputies union to prevent former Sheriff Jim McDonnell from turning over to the district attorney about 300 names of deputies with a history of misconduct.
A divided, Los Angeles-based court of appeal ruled in 2017 that the list must be kept secret, even in pending criminal cases in which errant deputies were expected to testify.
The state high court’s decision, due in 90 days, would affect law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
The case pits the privacy rights of law enforcement officers against the constitutional duty of prosecutors to give the defense evidence that might cast doubt on a defendant’s guilt, reduce a potential sentence or diminish the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
That duty stems from a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady vs. Maryland, which said suppression of evidence favorable to the defense violated due process.
At issue is only whether the names can be turned over to prosecutors, not whether they would become public.
But the presence of the names on a list means deputies could be one step closer to having their disciplinary files scrutinized by a judge and their police work called into question during a court proceeding.
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar noted that the constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defense trumps state law intended to protect the privacy of law enforcement officers. He suggested the court could “harmonize” the laws.
He called the case “very challenging,” but also noted that “the Brady responsibility is on the state.”
Justice Joshua P. Groban expressed skepticism about the union’s legal arguments.
“You are saying as long as we can bar the door and keep the law enforcement agency from sharing that with the prosecution, then there is no Brady violation?” he asked the lawyer for the union.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan noted that officers whose names were on a list would have less privacy protection than others.
But she also said that a state law intended to protect officer privacy while allowing some disclosures may be hindering the release of information a criminal defendant is entitled to under the Constitution.
Under the system in place for four decades, defense attorneys and prosecutors may ask a trial judge to review an officer’s personnel file to determine whether there is evidence that must be disclosed.
But without knowing an officer’s history, a defense lawyer may not be able to persuade the judge to undertake a review.
“There are cases in which legitimate and material evidence is eluding their review,” Corrigan said.
Justice Leondra R. Kruger asked whether there were legal safeguards that could be imposed to protect officer privacy after the names were disclosed to prosecutors.
Aimee Feinberg, representing the state attorney general, said courts could issue protective orders to ensure the officers’ names were shielded from the public.
Geoffrey S. Sheldon, who argued for Los Angeles County, said he felt “good” about how the hearing went.
“I’m cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in the case,” he said.
Judith Posner, representing the union, said she couldn’t predict the outcome.
“There were a lot of interesting and probing questions on both sides,” she said.
Police departments in at least a dozen counties, including San Francisco, Sacramento and Ventura, have had a regular practice of sending prosecutors the names of so-called Brady list officers.
California’s strict laws protecting officer personnel files — which underpinned the appellate court’s ruling for the deputies union — were dramatically altered by a new transparency law that opened up records of confirmed cases of lying and sexual misconduct by officers, as well as shootings and serious uses of force.
SB 1421, which went into effect Jan. 1, allows the public to see many of the documents at issue in the L.A. County sheriff’s case.
But the new law does not apply to the broader range of misconduct that could put an officer on a Brady list, including domestic abuse, sexual harassment, racial discrimination and bribery.
Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who ousted McDonnell in a stunning upset last fall, has called the Brady list a “fake list” and says it was the result of corrupt investigations designed to retaliate against certain deputies.
By Michael G. Stogner
The Taser Part of the story.
October 3, 2018 Millbrae, California Chinedu Okobi died In-Custody of Six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees. Not Five.
October 15, 2018 San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said “Two Deputies used their tasers multiple times and Okobi died.” That’s 12 days the DA has had the facts.
October 17, 2018 Senior Inspector Bill Massey receives the AXON data for the Tasers from Sergeant Bob Pronske. It shows 7 deployments from Deputy Wang’s Taser 6 with full 5 seconds discharges and the 7th with a 4 second discharge. So that is 1 Deputy with 7 activations.
Now add at some unknown date Rick Decker who’s boss is Inspector Bill Massey and he changes the story to a few activations.
So we went from Two Deputies to One Deputy with 7 activations, to One Deputy with a few activations.
How does this information keep changing?
All reports can be found pages 53-54 on the District Attorney’s website.
By Michael G. Stogner
This is a work in progress.
There were Six San Mateo County Sheriff Employees not Five. It’s illegal for a civilian to participate in the takedown of Chinedu Okobi. Everybody in Law Enforcement knows that. CSO Joseph Gonzales is a civilian.
Nicole Basurto, A very good and concerned Citizen, Witness not found by Sheriff Office. She called in.“Thought it was odd the Deputies did not try to arrest Decedent Okobi when he was on the ground.”She was fairly certain that he died at the scene.” “A male deputy hit Okobi 3-4 times with a closed fist, seemed directed to his head.”
San Mateo County Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz #21 “I have determined the manner of Death to be Homicide.”
San Mateo County Sheriff IT Technician Johnson Hang was unable to download Deputy Wang & Sergeant Weidner’s MAV Video from patrol cars at the crime scene. Why?
Menlo Park Police Officer Joshua Russell unable to download his witness interviews he tried twice, Vie-Vu software owned by Axon.
San Mateo County Criminalist II Anthony Delmonico: District Attorney’s office requesting the Forensic Investigation of an “In-Custody Death.”
Caption in D.A.’s video at the 7:22 mark “ A deputy attempts to subdue Okobi with Pepper Spray, but mistakenly hits his fellow deputies and Sergeant.” Steve Wagstaffe does not identify the sprayer as Deputy Wang, Why? His Expert Jeffrey Martin says it was Deputy Wang. There is only one Deputy it could be and that is Wang. There is one other possibility and that might be why Wagstaffe chose not to identify Wang as the sprayer of Pepper Spray. “At the t 7:18 mark Civilian CSO Joseph Gonzales’s right hand can clearly be seen unholstering and discharging pepper spray.” He then puts it back in his belt and backs away.
Sergeant Weidner calls it a Crime Scene at 11:31 mark. Why is arresting a suspect a Crime Scene?
Sergeant Weidner 13:26 Mark on cellphone “Dude’s alive that’s all you need to know, We’re good.”
Sergeant Weidner 10/03/2018 says Okobi was Pepper Sprayed changes story. Why?
14:35 mark says: “He’s been tasered several times and Peppered Sprayed.”
15:03 mark says: “ He’s been tased twice and Pepper Sprayed.”
Weidner Statement to Jamie Draper on 10/04/2018 prepared 10/12/2018
“He was told later it was Deputy Wang who deployed the pepper spray at that point in the struggle; however he did not see him do it.” Sergeant Weidner speculated the pepper spray was possibly directed upward at the subject’s face while he was in a somewhat prone position on the ground which caused the spray to miss the subject completely and instead strike Deputy Watt, Deputy Lorenzatti and Sergeant Weidner.
D.J. Wozniak President of the Deputy Sheriff Association, the Union calls Sgt. Weiner at the Crime Scene audio goes silent. 22:10 mark. Why is he calling Weidner?
Deputy De Martini to Jamie Draper (Sincere report)
“He said he felt a Pulse but said due to the fact he had just been struggling with Okobi he was no longer certain if he felt Okobi’s pulse or his own.”
Also said “ I kind of raised up his head a little bit.”
Deputy Watt to Jamie Draper (Sincere report.)
“Said he was speaking to Decedent Okobi, telling him to relax and breath, But he did not recall Okobi ever saying anything in response.
San Mateo County District Attorney Office Press Conference March 1, 2019
March 1, 2019 San Mateo County District Attorney held a Press Conference.
The members of the Public were not included.
8:20 mark Steve Wagstaffe tells the reporters that the “Cause of Death was Cardiac Arrest.”
47:40 mark, KQED Reporter Julie Small asked “Do you know the manner of death?” Wagstaffe says “The Coroner of this County Labeled it a Homicide.” He went on to say Homicide occurring during interaction with that individual.”
Had Reporter Small of KQED not asked that question Steve Wagstaffe was not going to mention Homicide
I, Michael G. Stogner Co-owner of San Mateo County News.Com asked Steve Wagstaffe @ 37:39 mark.
“After Mr. Okobi stopped breathing, You mentioned in your presentation somebody said get him in a seated position, can you identify which deputy said that?
Wagstaffe said, “It was Sgt Weidner, “He actually uses the words Positional Aphysixation watch for that, But he was breathing and he had a pulse.”
Q. By putting him in a seated position, Did his head not go forward and stop his breathing?” Note: Seated Position @ 10:27 mark
Wagstaffe said “It did not.””The belief was Not, that it did not occur.” “Because they continued to check for the breathing.” check head position at 10:27 mark it did go forward Mr. Wagstaffe.
Wagstaffe said, “But he was breathing and he had a pulse at the time.” “He actual uttered some words.” No Caption at time with words allegedly uttered
Wagstaffe said, “It was a couple of minutes, several minutes after he was turned over to the AMR people.” “Deputies are out of the picture then it’s over to the medical people.”
The video does not support Steve Wagstaffe’s statement.
Video shows AMR #37 Suzanne Holman @17:55 mark giving Sternum Rub, Checking for a Pulse, and tilting head back. If a Reasonable Person takes the meaning of several minutes to mean 3 minutes that would take you to the 20:55 mark.
Wagstaffe said, He was still breathing when the Sheriff Deputies turned him over to the ARM people.” Question, What time was Okobi turned over to the AMR people? Question, Who from the FOUR AMR people is District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe talking about? Here are the AMR people, Suzanne Holman #37, Forrest Uhland #37, Patrick Pham #94 & Ferdinand Retanubun #94
According to Daly City Police Officer Joshua McQuade who interviewed S. Holman on 10/04/2018
AMR #37 Suzanne Holman “She said she did not touch the decedent.”
AMR #37: Forrest Uhland “Did not render any medical aid to decedent Okobi personally.”
AMR #94 Ferdinand Retanubun said “His unit was assigned to treat the injured deputy who was bleeding from the face (Deputy Wang)
AMR #94 Partick Pham said he was assigned to attend to two (2) Sheriff’s Deputies whom he described as an Asian deputy with abrasions to his face, (Deputy Joshua Wang) and a bald deputy who had been exposed to pepper spray (Deputy Bryan Watt).
Wagstaffe said, “You can hear the AMR people say to him, Check the pulse make sure he is still breathing.” That sentence makes no sense at all. A Reasonable Person would have to ask, Who is Wagstaffe calling Him? He can’t be talking about Chinedu Okobi, He has been dead since 9:10 mark.
Wagstaffe said, “You don’t see them taking out their nightsticks.” -5:27 mark
Deputy Wang & Deputy Watt both brought out their Batons. In the DA’s Video at the 10:57 Mark you will see Deputy DeMartini Tampering with Evidence by picking up a Taser and Extended Baton and putting them in CSO’s Sheriff Pick Up Truck.
By Michael G. Stogner
Fact: There was No Immediate Assault of a Deputy. Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos knew that.
Who word crafted that? How many people were involved in that false statement?
A Reasonable Person after viewing the Video prepared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe will come to the conclusion that Chinedu V. Okobi died on El Camino Real, Millbrae California at the 9:10 mark 87 seconds before his body was sat up on his rear end with his legs straight out and his head slumped forward closing his airways. That is a full 9 minutes 40 seconds before CPR Chest Compressions were given while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. During this time there was a lot of talk and captions about checking his pulse but there is little evidence any of the 5 Sheriff Deputies or the Civilian CSO Joseph Gonzales did actually check his pulse.
SMCSO Deputy De Martini’s statement, He said he felt a pulse, but said due to the fact he had just been struggling with Okobi, he was NO LONGER Certain if he felt Okobi’s pulse or his own. That’s pretty honest. He also said “I kind of raised up his Head a little bit.”
SMCSO Sergeant David Weidner “I Never take his pulse or anything like that.”
SMCSO Watt He was Unsure if decedent Okobi was breathing because he was not moving around to the extent Deputy Watt expected after the struggle. Regarding checking pulse.”Trying to reach” “I stopped trying to take a pulse because he was moving his head around.”
SMCSO Deputy Wang Did not check Okobi for a pulse.
SMCSO Lorenzatti “Put him in a seated position Paramedics arrived on the scene and she recalled seeing a paramedic determine Okobi did have a pulse.” Deputy Lorenzatti did NOT check pulse. This statement makes it look like the paramedics were right there and started caring for Chinedu Okobi. It was 10 minutes and 29 seconds of Okobi sitting with his head slumped down before paramedics at 17:59 Caption “Paramedics try to awaken Okobi and attempt to locate a pulse.”
Jeffrey Martin the expert hired by Steve Wagstaffe and paid approx. $15,000 by Taxpayers stated 7:10 as the time Okobi was Handcuffed. Wagstaffe’s video doesn’t give a caption for time handcuffed. Weidner states Okobi was placed in seated position within 10 seconds of being handcuffed. That would be 7:20 Martin says 20 seconds so 7:30 Okobi in seated position. The video shows 10:27 Chinedu Okobi sat up on his rear end completely limp and unresponsive with head slumped forward which would have stopped his breathing if he was in fact breathing at that time. That is a 3 MINUTE difference between Expert and Deputy statements and the Video evidence.
The deputy exited his vehicle to contact the suspect and the suspect immediately assaulted the deputy, that is the biggest lie of the two. a male adult who was running in and out of traffic on El Camino Real is the second.
Chinedu Okobi was not running in and out out traffic before Deputy Wang tried to herd him with his vehicle including driving the wrong way on ECR.
Supervisor Don Horsley while serving as Sheriff terminated the employment of a Correctional Officer for being dishonest, lying to a law enforcement officer during an investigation.
The False San Mateo County Sheriff Office Press/News Release is the same thing. Everybody in the DA’s Office, County Counsel, and Sheriff’s Office who had access to the data knew the Press Release was Dishonest. There lies the problem for SMC residents/
PIO Rosemerry Blankswade and Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos are responsible for this press release to be put out to the public.
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe took 5 months to finally release a highly edited creation of video/some-audio including Captions he felt would be helpful in misleading the public to believe that Chinedu V. Okobi “He was still breathing when the Sheriff Deputies turned him over to the AMR people.” He takes it a step further and said it was several minutes after AMR had him. If several means 3 minutes that would be around the 21:00 in his video. Wagstaffe does not tell you what time in the video that transfer of responsibility occurred.
Wagstaffe also fails to identify CIVILIAN CSO Joseph Gonzales 6:26 mark who was physically involved in the takedown of Mr. Okobi. It was Illegal for him to be involved. “He had multiple red/brown stains located on his person from the altercation.”
You can see him in action at the 7:18 mark when several deputies get pepper sprayed. Wagstaffe’s Caption at 7:22 mark “A deputy attempts to subdue Okobi with pepper spray but mistakenly hits his fellow deputies and sergeant.” Joesph Gonzales is not a San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy, Wagstaffe knows that. He doesn’t identify the deputy, Why? Wagstaffe’s Expert Jeffrey Martin says Deputy Wang did it. There are 5 deputies and 1 CSO that makes 6 people involved. Three of them got sprayed, that leaves two deputies, Deputy DeMartini’s statement rules him out. The person who did the spraying said “I did, I did that.” Jamie Draper has access to voice recognition software it should be simple to identify who said those words. It’s one of two people Deputy Wang or CSO Civilian Gonzales.
Wagstaffe & Bolanos only identify the 5 deputies Why? It was Illegal for CSO Joseph Gonzales to be involved that’s why.
Wagstaffe fails to put a caption at the 10:57 mark. Deputy DeMartini Tampering with Evidence
Partial Video of March 1, 2019 Press Conference KPIX CBS SF
I attended the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Press Conference on March 1, 2019. At the -12:02 mark I asked Steve Wagstaffe “After Mr. Okobi stopped breathing, By putting him in a seated position did his head not go forward and stop his breathing?”
Steve Wagstaffe responded “It did not.” “The belief was not.” “That did not occur.” Because they continued to check for the breathing.
“But he was breathing and he had a pulse at that time.”
“He actually uttered some words.” Really? What were the uttered words, who heard them, and what time on the video? No caption for this important assertion.
The Video Wagstaffe produced shows otherwise at 10:27 mark.
A thought for the readers, Steve Wagstaffe and his TEAM and Sheriff Carlos Bolanos have had all of the data for 5 months. It was withheld from reporters and the public for 5 months.
Effective May 1, 2019 ALL E-MAILS WILL BE DELETED THAT ARE 90 DAYS OLD AND OLDER.
Welcome to San Mateo County.
By. Michael G. Stogner
Zain Jaffer’s attorney filed suit yesterday seeking $100,000,000 for Wrongful Termination. He is not satisfied with not being in prison for 30-40 years. Notice he is not suing Hillsborough Police Department who arrested him for Attempted Murder of his child. The Police Chief stands by the arrest for all charges and he has the video to prove it. His criminal case being plucked from the legal process/system is similar to the College Admissions Corruption story in recent news.
No application ever filed or made for factual innocence motion.
Here are the charges minus the Attempted Murder Charge the Hillsborough Police called for.
COUNT 1: PC664/PC288.7(b) (Felony)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Attempted Oral Copulation With Child 10 Years Old Or Younger in violation of PC664/PC288.7(b), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER being a person 18 years of age or older, did attempt to engage in oral copulation with John Doe (3 years old), a child who was 10 years of age or younger. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c).
COUNT 2: PC288(b)(1) (Felony)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Forcible Lewd Act Upon Child in violation of PC288(b)(1), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon or with the body or certain parts or members thereof of John Doe (3 years old), a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of the said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER or the said child, by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c) NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require the court to order you to submit to a blood test for evidence of antibodies to the probable causative agent of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Penal Code Section 1202.1.
COUNT 3: PC245(a)(4) (Felony)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Assault By Means Likely To Produce Great Bodily Injury in violation of PC245(a)(4), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully commit an assault on Firoz Jaffer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
COUNT 4: PC273A(a) (Felony)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, John Doe (3 years old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered.
COUNT 5: PC273A(a) (Felony)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, Jane Doe (1 year old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered.
COUNT 6: PC243(b) (Misdemeanor)
On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Battery Upon A Peace Officer in violation of PC243(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully use force or violence upon the person of Peter Gould when said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER, knew or reasonably should have known that said person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1054.5(b), the People are hereby informally requesting that defendant(s) and his or her attorney provide to the People the discovery required by Penal Code Section 1054.3. This is a continuing request pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 1054.7.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those things stated on information and belief and those I believe to be true.
Executed on October 17, 2017, at San Mateo County, California.
Also here is an e-mail to reporter at the PADP where he is describing a witness from the P.H. Jan. 31, 2018
From: Steve Wagstaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PMTo: Emily Mibach
Subject: People v. Jaffer
Here is the description of the testimony by the instructor:
DEFENSE THEN CALLED MARTIN ROMUALDEZ, D’S JIU-JITSU INSTRUCTOR FOR 6 MTHS PRIOR TO INCIDENT, AND THEN CALLED OFC REY. MR. ROMUALDEZ TESTIFIED THAT WHAT HE OBSERVED ON THE BODY CAM FOOTAGES WAS THE DEF PERFORMING A JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT HE HAD BEEN TRAINED IN (ARM BAR/TRIANGLE). MR. ROMUALDEZ ADMITTED HOWEVER THAT IN THE NUMEROUS PRACTICE SESSIONS WHERE D AND HIS SON JOHN DOE WERE INVOLVED THAT D WAS NEVER NAKED, THAT IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY SCREAMING ON THE PART OF JOHN DOE, THAT JOHN DOE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE IN PAIN, THAT JOHN DOE WAS NEVER INJURED OR TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. INSTRUCTOR FURTHER ADMITTED THERE IS NO JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT INVOLVES INSERTING FINGERS INTO ONE’S ANUS OR SELF-STIMULATING IN THAT MANNER, AND THAT THE PRACTICE SESSION S WITH D AND HIS SON NEVER INVOLVED ANY KIND OF TRASH TALK OR LANGUAGE SUCH AS “PUSSY.”
San Mateo County should Audit this case and that includes CPS & APS.
Michael G. Stogner