By Michael G. Stogner
How many Criminal defendants hire a P.R. Firm to promote the story they wish the world to hear.
Over the last 20 years I have attended many, many criminal cases and trials in San Mateo County, I know of only one case where the defendant hired a professional Crisis Management Public Relations Company to promote a fictional story. That case is the Zain Jaffer Criminal Case.
Some of you know I have recommended San Mateo County Residents Audit the Zainali Jaffer Case and the former San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Case. One start to finish less than 9 months and the other 6 years in the judicial system and still counting. What are the differences?
Sitrick and Company is one difference.
A Private Meeting with the District Attorney’s TEAM after a Preliminary Hearing is another difference. How many times does that happen? That meeting is where the SMC residents should focus, was it recorded? What was really communicated that afternoon, Think about that. What could possibly have been communicated during that meeting that caused many San Mateo County Employees to forget their Oath?
This is Terry Fahn & Stuart Pfeifer of Sitrick and Company’s Work July 23, 2018 which is 21 days after the Entire case was dismissed.
July 23, 2018 09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Patrick Clancy, attorney for Zain Jaffer, co-founder and former CEO of video ad company Vungle, today thanked Stephen M. Wagstaffe, District Attorney for the County of San Mateo, for going out of his way to clarify that Mr. Jaffer is completely innocent of any form of sexual misconduct.
“examining the case and recognizing it was not supported by the facts.”
Tweet this
Mr. Jaffer was arrested in October 2017 after an altercation with family members caused by a dangerous reaction to doctor-prescribed medication. In July, the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office dismissed all charges against Mr. Jaffer, a move that could open the door to Mr. Jaffer’s return to Vungle.
In a new statement published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mr. Wagstaffe said: “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.”
Mr. Clancy praised the District Attorney’s office for clarifying the facts and making it clear that Mr. Jaffer is completely innocent of any sexual assault charge.
“Mr. Jaffer did not do anything whatsoever that could be considered sexual. He suffered an adverse reaction to medication and in the process injured some family members. It was accidental and could have happened to anyone,” Mr. Clancy said, “Thankfully, the District Attorney and his staff reviewed all the evidence and made the right decision.”
“The sexual assault charges were dismissed because they never happened. It was only the physical injuries to his family that were dismissed because of Mr. Jaffer being in a state of unconsciousness. Unconsciousness can range anywhere from sleep walking to an epileptic fit. The person has no control over his actions, no awareness of his actions, and no intent to do any of his actions. He is unconscious.”
The San Mateo Daily Journal said Mr. Wagstaffe praised his prosecutors for “examining the case and recognizing it was not supported by the facts.” The D.A. told the Palo Alto Daily Post that they “avoided the possibility that Mr. Jaffer would be wrongfully convicted.”
Mr. Clancy said: “This should put an end to the spread of misinformation and gossip that has prevented Mr. Jaffer from returning to his role at Vungle, the start-up he founded.”
Contacts
Sitrick And Company
Stuart Pfeifer
spfeifer@sitrick.com
or
Terry Fahn
terry_fahn@sitrick.com
(310) 788-2850
Lets just take this one simple sentence by Terry and Stuart “Mr. Jaffer did not do anything whatsoever that could be considered sexual.
How does that statement stack up with this from Steve Wagstaffe on October 17, 2017.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, we filed a felony complaint against defendant Zain Jaffer. We charged him with five felonies and one misdemeanor as follows:
Count I 664-288.7(B) felony oral copulation on a minor under 10 years old Count II 288(B)(1) felony forcible lewd act on a child
Count III 245(A)(4) felony assault likely to produce great bodily injury Count IV 273(A)(A) felony child abuse
Count V 273A(A) felony child abuse
Count VI 243(B) misdemeanor battery on a police officer
On Tuesday afternoon, the defendant was arraigned in RWC Felony Court, Judge Cristina Mazzei. The defendant appeared with retained attorney Daniel Olmos of Palo Alto. The defense motion to continue was granted and no plea was entered. The case was continued to November 1, 2017 1:30 for entry of plea and to set a preliminary hearing date. Bail was set at $300,000. I do not know whether he is still in custody or has been released on bail (you can check with the Sheriff’s Office PIO for that detail).
The child victim was the defendant’s three year old son. The officer who was the victim of the battery was not seriously hurt. My assistant will email to you a copy of the charging document setting for the charges.
Thanks Steve
Or this Statement from Steve Wagstaffe to a reporter
From: Steve Wagstaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PM To: Emily Mibach
Subject: People v. Jaffer
Hi Emily,
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.”
It’s fair to say that Sitrick and Company did not include TRASH TALK- PUSSY while naked straddling a 3 year old child at 4AM in the backyard or INSERTING FINGERS INTO ONE’S ANUS OR SELF-STIMULATING IN THAT MANNER.
Sitrick And Company does not mention the many articles I wrote about this case at San Mateo County News.com and that is understandable they were hired to promote a different story and that they did. The Question I have for Sitrick and Company is Did you ever contact CPS? Were you EVER concerned for the Safety and well-being of a 1 year old girl and a 3 year old boy. I did and I was and still am concerned.
Back to the AUDIT. The day the Jaffer case was dismissed District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe sent this email to his favorite Media. Notice he DOES NOT MENTION HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. WHY?
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: MEDIA MEMBERS
FROM: STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Media Notes For Monday, July 2, 2018
CASES OF INTEREST IN COURT TODAY
July 2, 2018
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 is set at 1:30 in Dept. 9, Criminal Presiding Judge Stephanie G. Garratt, for the pretrial conference. The case is set on August 27, 2018 8:30 for jury trial. This is the third setting of the jury trial date since the superior court arraignment on February 15, 2018. The defendant is out of custody on $300,000 bail bond (posted on October 26, 2017). The defense attorney is Daniel Olmos (retained) and Patrick Clancey (retained).
That same day Zain Jaffer read a prepared Statement, Who wrote that prepared Statement? How many defendants go to a court hearing for a Pretrial Hearing with a written prepared Statement Thanking the District Attorney for Dismissing all of Your Charges. I know of NONE.
“I was incredibly fortunate that I was able to defend myself through the legal system, but I am aware that many others are not. Moving forward, I plan on examining ways that I can help others who are innocent and are seeking to obtain justice.”
— Zain Jaffer
Message to Zain Jaffer Former San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez is a perfect case for you to pay attention to. You will remember he was arrested 6 years ago. District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe held a press conferences told the World Deputy Sheriff Lopez Smuggled a Cellphone and Drugs to a Gang Member Inmate. It turns out those Charges were completely Fabricated Who Cares?
Next Court Date for Lopez is November 16, 2020.
May 5, 2015 Social Networks Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback Submitted on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 – 2:26pm Submitted by anonymous user: [73.15.184.232] Submitted values are: Your Information First Name Michael Middle initial G Last Name Stogner Address Line 645 Prospect St. 201 Address Line 2 City San Carlos State California Zip Code 94070 Zip Email Address 
