May 14, 2020 Mark Simon wrote an article titled “An unusual Harbor District Meeting” the typical Victim Shaming piece which is something he is quite skilled at. This article is about a SMCHD meeting that took place 29 days prior to his article. He has joined Congresswoman Jackie Speiers Daughter Stephanie Sierra of ABC 7/KGO in the Victim Shaming plan of attack. Also on the TEAM is Supervisor Don Horsley, Assemblyman Kevin Mullin (Mark Simon’s partner) I can’t wait to discover who is the Captain of this TEAM and who is responsible for forming it.
I would suggest Mark Simon consider the May 26, 2015 as an unusual meeting it was very exciting and I know he attended I just don’t know why?At the time he worked for SamTrans.
First of all this April 15, 2020 meeting was not unusual for the Harbor District, I’m not sure how many meetings Mr. Simon has actually attended I have attended several and the yelling and cutting each other off especially Virginia Chang Kiraly to Sabrina Brenna is normal Virginia doesn’t like Sabrina similar to how Mark Simon feels about her.
Mark Simon who supports the Perpetrator says Her vehicle for this behavior was a long-standing dispute with fellow Commissioner Tom Mattusch, who in 2014 foolishly circulated some raw pornography to about 40 people. Mark doesn’t mention the Invitation for all expense paid Safari trip Tom Mattusch offered Sabrina.
So it’s Not ok with Mark Simon for Victim Sabrina Brennan to speak about female genitalia but is ok to mail unwelcome porn, which is exactly what Commissioner Tom Mattuschsent her and all the other Commissioners, Supervisor Don Horsley, Assemblyman Mullin, Mark Simon, and Stephanie Sierra ABC 7/KGO are cool with that. Together they want/wish Sabrina Brennan to just SHUT UP, Move On. That is the same that all Child Molesters (SMC Dr. William Ayers) and their Enablers want/wish of their Victims.
John Ullom at 29:20 Mark He and brother Dan own Citizen Access TV, somebody stole his broadcasting device, They were broadcasting the meeting live for FREE. Somebody didn’t want that to happen.
The true picture of Mark Simon, a Loud & Vile Bully, Victim Shaming/Basher.
As a Private Victims Advocate for the last 22 years in San Mateo County I find the way to get a victim to stop talking about a subject is to deal with it Honestly in the first place. Victim Shaming, and telling the Victim to Shut up is a guarantee that you will hear about it at Every Single Meeting.
“I will continue bringing up my harassment at these meetings,” she said. “I won’t be silenced.” Sabrina Brennan.
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? The sixth Sheriff Employee CSO Joseph Gonzales is a civilian that’s why.
Wagstaffe fails to put a caption at the 10:57 mark. Deputy DeMartini Tampering with Evidence
District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe confirms Chinedu Okobi’s Death was a Homicide at 47:30 mark. How does he explain no criminal charges?
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.
DMV under scrutiny in voting glitch
State leaders will assess whether registration errors changed November election results.
By John Myers
SACRAMENTO — Faced with evidence that some voter registration forms weren’t properly filed by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, state officials will now investigate whether any votes were wrongly rejected and whether the final results in any state or local races should be reconsidered.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla and leaders of the agency that oversees the DMV agreed on Monday to settle a federal lawsuit brought by advocacy groups including the League of Women Voters of California and the American Civil Liberties Union. The settlement, in part, states that Padilla’s office will “take steps to ensure that every vote is counted” if ballots were rejected and will provide “guidance to elections officials in the relevant jurisdiction(s) on how to count the affected ballots and, if appropriate, recertify election results.”
On Dec. 14, DMV officials revealed that staff members had not transmitted voter registration files for 589 people whose applications or updated applications were filled out before the close of registration for the Nov. 6 statewide election. At the time, state officials could not confirm whether any of those voters had been turned away on election day, or if any had cast last-minute provisional ballots that were rejected in the final tally.
Monday’s settlement raises the possibility that a full investigation of the delayed voter registration documents could reveal races in which the outcome might have changed had those voters been allowed to participate.
State officials now have 60 days to complete an investigation into the identity of those voters and why DMV staff members failed to transmit the files in a timely fashion.
The error was the latest in a series of mishaps revealed in the first six months of operation for California’s new automated “motor voter” program, under which DMV customers are registered to vote unless they decline.
“I am committed to working with new leadership at DMV and the new administration to ensure integrity of the motor voter program and accuracy of the data,” Padilla said in a statement Monday night. “This settlement continues to move those efforts forward.”
Padilla’s office said on Tuesday that a preliminary investigation had not found any instances in which voter registration delays would have changed the outcome of a race.
The deadline to register for November’s election was Oct. 22. The records in question either came in before that deadline, or included documents signed and dated before that date. A Dec. 14 letter to Padilla from Jean Shiomoto, who was then DMV director, said the registration records weren’t submitted “due to a misunderstanding on the part of the department, for which we take responsibility.”
Shiomoto retired from state government at the end of 2018. Gov. Gavin Newsom has yet to appoint a new permanent director.
“We continue to actively work with our stakeholders to ensure full transparency for the California motor voter program,” Melissa Figueroa, deputy secretary for communications at the California State Transportation Agency, said in a statement Monday. “As an agency, we are committed to getting this right.”
The settlement, filed Monday in a San Francisco federal court, said that DMV staffers failed to transmit voter registration documents in a timely fashion beginning Oct. 12 and that all documents were held back for the three weeks following election day.
Several other problems were reported just days after state officials launched the DMV’s automated voter registration system in late April.
Those included multiple registration forms sent to counties for the same voter , flawed registrations for 23,000 DMV customers and a limited number of non-U.S. citizens — permanent green-card residents — mistakenly added to the voter rolls.
The agreement to investigate why DMV officials didn’t promptly submit hundreds of voter registration forms “establishes concrete steps that California will take to investigate and improve the DMV voter registration system,” said Melissa Breach, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California.
He is upset that the Supervisors formed a Committee on Tasers to meet Feb. 11, 2019 6-8PM in the Supervisors meeting room 1st floor of the 400 County Center Building. He is not the only one upset at the Supervisors, this Committee and subject matter is not at all important to the murder of Chinedu.
EXCESSIVE & UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE is the only topic that is important. That is what Steve Wagstaffe, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, David Canepa are all distracting the public with the Committee dog and pony show. If this “Committee on Tasers” Charade sounds familiar it should 2008 the BOS did a similar performance.
Ethics committee in works
By Michelle Durand
Elected county officials suspected of wrongdoing or unbecoming conduct can be investigated by a five-member ethics committee with the authority to recommend their removal, according to an ordinance unanimously endorsed yesterday by the Board of Supervisors.
The board created the independent citizens review panel on Tuesday after revisiting an earlier proposal by supervisors Jerry Hill and Adrienne Tissier. At its July 22 meeting, the board cautiously backed the idea but asked for some fine-tuning of language to avoid the panel embarking on what Supervisor Mark Church characterized as a “witch hunt” against officials.
The approved proposal defines “serious official misconduct” based on an existing San Bernadino ordinance and allows the board to determine an allegation is unfounded before calling together the review panel. The passed ordinance also suspends the panel’s investigation when necessary as not to conflict with any criminal proceedings.
Although having such a review panel will help the county deal with questionable situations if needed, the goal is to never have them arise, Hill said.
The ordinance, which still requires a second reading to become official, also can’t retroactively address the matter which sparked its formation — the April 2007 detention of Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos in an undercover brothel sting in Las Vegas.
The pair were in town for a law enforcement race and told police they mistakenly went to the raided home because they thought it was a legitimate massage parlor.
Neither was charged with a crime and the supervisors said they had no discipline authority. Approximately a year later, Hill revisited the issue of official oversight for elected county officials.
Hill and Tissier suggested an independent ethics committee as an alternative to less viable oversight ideas such as letting the Board of Supervisors remove fellow elected officials. Not even a county charter amendment gives the board authority to remove an elected official and the state constitution doesn’t allow the board to discipline an official to any less degree.
While the committee itself can’t take action, its independent nature removes the politics from the process and can spark into action the grand jury, which does have the authority to recommend an official’s removal.
The citizen’s review panel of individuals will include either retired judges, former county or city administrators, former grand juror foreperson, or former county counsels, city attorneys or district attorneys. Selection would be random and Brown Act — California’s open meeting law — requirements enforced.
The San Bernadino County charter — the one most often referenced as a San Mateo County template — allows a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors to remove any other county officer for “flagrant or repeated neglect of duties,” “misappropriation of public property,” “violation of any law related to the performance of the official’s duties” or “willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document.”
While the ordinance has survived a legal challenge, it has never been used.
As you all know, the District Attorney has not yet announced if he will or will not prosecute 4 of our members for the death in custody in Millbrae last October. While I’m disappointed his decision has taken so long, we are confident our members did nothing wrong and are fully prepared to defend our members if any charges are filed. The DSA stands behind our members and the actions they took that day in Millbrae. I’m confident that if the DA’s office wanted to move forward with any charges, we would prevail in court.
NOTE: I think every San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy knows the above statement by D.J. Wozniak sounds really good, but in reality look what D.J. has done for Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez.
While the DA’s office weighs its options, the NAACP and the National Black Lives Matter movement have taken a particular interest in the Sheriff’s Office. They have activated their base via social media and have inundated the Board of Supervisors with thousands of calls and emails asking them to remove Tasers from San Mateo County Law Enforcement.
While I had hoped they would simply ignore these anti police activists, they have not. Unfortunately, Supervisor Pine and Groom have given these people an audience and formed a “taser committee” where they’ll will be looking into Tasers, policies surrounding them and researching deaths related to Tasers.
This is baffling because the decision to deploy Tasers is not made by the Board of Supervisors, it is the decision of the Sheriff.
The committee plans on holding a public meeting to “discuss Tasers”. The meeting is tenatively scheduled for February 11th at 1800 hours.
Once the meeting date/ time is confirmed, I will be asking all DSA members try to attend the meeting. I’m not asking you to speak or participate in the conversation as I find it unlikely that any of activists attending are open to listening to anything we have to say. We simply don’t want the entire audience to be full of anti police activists and having normal rational people in the audience will be helpful.
Here is what I have one in response to these events:
I have had numerous conversations with Sheriff Bolanos on this issue and made it crystal clear that the DSA does not support removing Tasers from our members. The Sheriff has has told me that he supports that decision and believes in Tasers have their place in the use of force policies of the Sheriff’s Office.
I have met with the board members individually. I have explained how valuable Tasers are to public safety. I have explained how high in the use of force continuum Tasers are and how restrictive our policy and procedures are regarding their use. I explained to them that the calls/emails they are receiving are not from people in San Mateo County. The people calling are part of the social media army of the Black Lives Matter organization and know nothing nothing about use of force issues and know nothing about Tasers and their use in law enforcement and most importantly, have no idea about the events in Millbrae resulting in the death in custody.
Sheriff Bolanos has authorized me to create a “use of force” day for the County Manager, County Council and Board of Supervisors. Working with the training unit, we will give the BOS training on Tasers and run them through various scenarios, with and without Tasers so they can see their value in public safety.
I ask that any of you who happen to have a conversation with Sheriff Bolanos, convey your appreciation for his stance on this issue and supporting the DSA.
I will obviously keep you posted on any developments with this “Taser Committee”.
The Peninsula Progressives Announce Winners for Assembly Delegates, District 22
Self-Organized Slate Representing the People of District 22 of San Mateo County
SAN MATEO, CA — February 1, 2019 — TheSan Mateo County Peninsula Progressives, a group of citizens who organized its own slate, announce the election win of all nine of their founding members to the California Democratic Party Delegates representing Assembly District 22.
The winners include: Regina Islas, Victoria Sanchez De Alba, Adonica Shaw-Porter, Uma Krishnan, Dan Stegink, Ted McKinnon, You You Xue, Joe Little, and Mike Dunham.
“We are unified Democrats, a self-organizing slate by the People and for the People to represent the District of San Mateo County,” said Dan Stegink, a Founding Member of the Peninsula Progressives. It was great to see people who were energized to turn out to vote and as we prepare for the 2020 Presidential, as well as for California state elections.”
Diverse representation, especially women, in leadership positions, is needed to accurately reflect the demographics of San Mateo County; as well as in state, and federal offices. It is vital now, because the Democratic Party will be selecting a new Chairperson and endorsing the next State Senator for the district.
The Progressives platform is based on the needs and wants of the many people in the community to build an inclusive, equitable, representative and just society for all Californians. And, we look forward to serving, listening, and learning more about what our communities need in order to bring these needs and visions into reality, including:
*Representation and Justice for all; *Medicare for All; *Women’s and LGBTQI Rights Unbridged; *Remove Corporate Money from Elections; *California Green New Deal; *Affordable Housing and Renter Protections and *Law Enforcement Oversight.
The Peninsula Progressives won 9-5 over the Assemblymember Kevin Mullin and State Senator Jerry Hill slate. We extend hearty congratulations to our fellow delegates: Harini Krishnan, Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo City Council Member Rick Bonilla and Foster City Mayor Sam Hindi for their election as delegates and to Chelsea Bonini for her election to the Executive Board.
The Peninsula Progressives appreciate the welcome of Senator Hill and Assemblymember Mullin. “We are excited to be working together to resolve critical issues facing our communities and the upcoming election of a new Democratic Party Chair and the endorsement of a new State Senator,” said Regina Islas, a Founding Member.
Most importantly, we want to thank each and every voter and supporter who gave their time, effort and interest on Saturday, Jan. 26 to make this slate a reality, we are humbled and proud to serve you!
There was good news and some not-so-good news from the Peninsula Democratic Party this past weekend.
The good news is the massive turnouts at two caucuses to elect regional representatives to the California Democratic Party. The caucuses are held in each of the state’s Assembly districts and turnout Saturday in the 22nd (represented by Kevin Mullin) and in the 24th (represented by Marc Berman) was huge with well over 600 attendees at each event.
This is a dramatic improvement over prior caucuses, where turnout was a couple of dozen or so.
Clearly, Peninsula Democrats are energized by the success of the 2018 congressional races, by the policies and conduct of the current president and by the prospect of winning the White House and the U.S. Senate in 2020.
The not-so-good news is that the party is split between self-described progressives and “establishment” Democrats, reflecting a national divide that could undermine the Democrats’ chances of winning in 2020. And, because this is the Democratic Party, there is even a split among the progressives, although it can get a little confusing because every Democrat running for these delegate slots seemed to self-describe as a progressive.
And speaking of self-description, the party doesn’t divide delegates into male and female candidates. They divide themselves “self-identified female” and “other than self-identified female.” Sometimes a thing just speaks for itself.
In the 22nd District caucus, a slate of Peninsula Progressives essentially took the lunch money of a slate backed by Mullin and state Senator Jerry Hill. The Progressive slate won 9-5 over the Mullin/Hill slate, despite the very high-profile presence of both legislators at the caucus.
Some of this is a function of fundamental politics – the Progressive slate, said to have been organized by political activist and county Harbor Commissioner Sabrina Brennan, worked harder to get more of their voters to the caucus.
Still, it’s a slap at the influence of two well-established Peninsula politicians. The Mullin/Hill slate was heavily populated by other elected officials and three of the five lost – Burlingame Councilwoman Emily Beach, Belmont Councilman Charles Stone and San Bruno Mayor Rico Medina.
In the 24th, the fight was between two Progressive slates and while they each won their share, it does not bode well for Democratic unity that the left wing of the party is competing with itself.
ANY NUMBER OF ANGRY PEOPLE: If there is a message in the defeat of an establishment slate, it might be further reflected in a 12-8 vote Friday by San Mateo County Cities Selection Committee to put Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and oust Redwood City Councilwoman Alicia Aguirre.
One of the factors driving Papan’s victory was concern – more like anger and distrust — that the region is moving swiftly to establish housing construction quotas that are aimed, quite particularly, at San Mateo County. Papan positioned herself as someone who would be appropriately aggressive in fighting that effort, and her selection is another example of an insurgent victory over the local status quo.
AN OPEN FIELD: The 24th Assembly District caucus was a nice win for former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who is running for Hill’s Senate seat. She was the top vote-getter among the “self-identified female” candidates, showing she still can carry the day among Santa Clara County progressives.
Lieber was a Mountain View councilwoman before winning an Assembly seat in 2002. She ran against Hill for the open Senate seat in 2012, and he won by a 2-1 margin. But Lieber outpolled Hill by 8 points in the Santa Clara County portion of the district.
The Senate candidates will report their 2018 fundraising totals at the end of the week, and it is expected that public interest entrepreneur Josh Becker will report a total in excess of $300,000, well ahead of his three opponents – Lieber, Redwood City Councilwoman Shelly Masur and Burlingame Councilman Michael Brownrigg.
You can expect they will say it is too early to assume anyone has taken command of the race, and that is the problem for the four candidates.
Rumors are quite active that another candidate could get into the race and change everything. The names that are being offered – not by these individuals, but by those who want them to run – are Mullin, who represents half the Senate district, former Assemblyman Rich Gordon, now president and CEO of the California Forestry Association (and, by all accounts, quite happy to be out of Sacramento), and San Mateo Mayor Diane Papan.
Contact Mark Simon at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“Still, it’s a slap at the influence of two well-established Peninsula politicians. The Mullin/Hill slate was heavily populated by other elected officials and three of the five lost – Burlingame Councilwoman Emily Beach, Belmont Councilman Charles Stone and San Bruno Mayor Rico Medina.”
It’s about time the residents of San Mateo County woke up. Jerry Hill, Kevin Mullin, Charles Stone, Mark Simon all members of TEAM “Those Who Matter” Did more than simply endorse the Yes on Measure W campaign and all except Simon endorsed Carlos G. Bolanos for Sheriff in the last election.
Not one of them is in favor of Law Enforcement Oversight.
That’s telling and their Silence on the Murder by Sheriff Deputies of Chinedu V. Okobi October 3, 2018 in Millbrae should cause the residents to pay attention.
San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy has stopped/paused/delayed this policy from going into effect Feb. 1, 2019. May 1, 2019 is the date it will go into effect unless it is rescinded.
I’ll give just a couple of examples of why this is a terrible policy. San Mateo County’s last election had a tax measure W pass in the last couple of days by about 500 votes with more than 270,000 ballots cast. Several elected officials made public statements including Audit/Recall the elections office and officer. That is pretty unusual, it will be important to go back years to find all communications between the elected officials, county counsel attorneys, Supervisors, Assemblymen, Wordcrafters who communicated about placing Measure W on the ballot in the first place, using public monies to promote it etc.
San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office used as a weapon, falsely charging people: Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case is a perfect example, you will recall Steve Wagstaffe told the world he smuggled a cellphone and drugs to a gang member in jail. That was a lie from day one,
I said falsely charging people: Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas should be considered. Her case is sealed why? 2007 she was in Las Vegas when Operation Dollhouse netted Carlos G. Bolanos at a single family home which had Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including a minor.
San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Not charging people: Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies October 3, 2018.
This has felt like one of those runaway train movies. Simply to find out Who put this on the County’s Website, Why was it put on and more importantly How to stop/pause it.
Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.
J. E-mail Retention
Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.
Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.
Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.
Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.
Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.
The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.
For over a year there was a pattern of police use of force deaths, in San Mateo County. This pattern culminated, in the October 3, 2018 Millbrae death of 36 year old pedestrian Chinedu Okobi.
Despite what would appear to any reasonably objective observer, an escalating body count, Mr Wagstaffe, as District Attorney, did nothing to address / curb the situation. And now, his administration is seemingly poised to render a decision blaming Okobi’s death, on something other than the unnecessary & excessive use of force by officers. This is a familiar pattern with DA Steve Wagstaffe, with his having blamed previous deaths on the decedents -their respective acts & medical conditions.
Most recently, he went on television saying he was not going to speculate on the Okobi case, that he had to get all the facts, before rendering a decision on the matter. Yet, instead of keeping his word, he went on camera and questioned the product liability aspect of Tasers, a device repeatedly used by officers, in their confrontation of Okobi .
Mr. Wagstaffe ignored a year long prologue of police use of force deaths, in his very jurisdiction. And then he told us he was not going to release videos, in his possession, ones which depict exactly what had happened, in the most recent death, that of Mr. Okobi.
He now says he is not going to release the videos and audio recordings of Chinedu’s murder to the public, his employers, so that they can see them.
The People do not need an interpreter, to understand what they are seeing for themselves, Mr. Wagstaffe.
Okobi’s mother and sister were shown the videos and audio recordings, and here is what his sister, Ebele, said about them:
It’s readily apparent you are struggling to shoehorn your narrative of what occurred with the facts and, in so doing, you have passed the rubicon of truthfulness, leaving honesty & integrity behind, and entering a sea of deception -familiar territory for yourself, a directed or desired outcome.
The taint and stench you and your cadre have brought to the office of district attorney is palpable and, I submit, can not be removed, without your & their removal.
Felony fraud resulting in the diversion of over 2 million dollars of public monies being characterized by your office as sloppy accounting practices, at San Mateo County Transit, is but one / just one example of DA Wagstaffe’s aversion to the truth. False debits are not errors or sloppy accounting, Steve, they are intentional criminal acts.
The bias you have demonstrated, when it comes to Sheriff Carlos Bolanos and former Sheriff Greg Munks, excusing their abhorrent behavior & giving them a pass, when they were detained by Las Vegas metropolitan police and the FBI, in a human trafficking investigation, one in which they had gone to a home being used as a whorehouse in a rundown residential neighborhood with Asian indentured sex-slaves, at least one of whom was a minor, and a cache (3,500 tablets) of illegal ecstasy drugs, is reprehensible and not in keeping with the public’s trust, Steve.
In that unguarded moment, in what you thought would be a confidential email to the duo, you expressed your support and consoled the two that the matter would soon pass and become yesterday’s news. This provides a rare glimpse into the flawed (real) character & thinking of who is District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
Here are those emails, #ThoseWhoMatter:
The fact that Okobi’s killers are back at work, armed, with unfeathered contact with the public & custodies alike, is testament to the fact DA Wagstaffe has cleared them and communicated this information to Sheriff Bolanos. Yet he is still massaging his findings to the public, delaying what he has obviously determined -that the officers’ use of force resulting in Okobi’s death was justified (reasonable) and that he and his office are going to do nothing about it, giving them a pass.
You are a snake oil salesman, Steve, selling the public adultered versions of the truth and being a shill for morally corrupt county officials. Release the videos, so we can see just how much!
If you as the reader are asking, “How on Earth is Steve Wagstaffe still the District Attorney of San Mateo County.” You are on the right track. The short answer is that you are responsible for him being there. He can only be recalled or voted out. He has full immunity for anything he does.
Whenever I see these four people and a small group of their friends and supporters I can’t help but think of my father John Donald Stogner aka Tex. He was an average guy who worked 6 days a week 12 hours a day to support his wife and 4 children. He was in the grocery store business for 38 years. He had no time or interest in politics, he voted every election, my mother worked at the polls every year. Neither one of them suspected that elected officials would spend taxpayer money against them in order to promote or pass a tax measure that would harm them or the business my father earned his living from.
In this video you will see 4 people who were instrumental in the Yes on Measure W campaign, not shown is SamTrans CEO Jim Hartnett husband of Rosanne Faust who claims a victory in getting the message out and beating the opposition which there was none. The opposition would be people like my mother and father hard working people just trying to get by. Rosanne does not mention the $650,000 of taxpayer money her husband spent on Educational Outreach Programs involving 501-C organizations. When you add the $1,100,000 that she raised thats $1,750,000 vs. the $5,700 a few brave individuals put together for the No on W campaign. Note the Yes on W supporters are the people that receive the taxpayer money and the No on W are the people stuck with paying it.
San Mateo County Elected Officials have been misleading the residents for many years. The 2012 SMC Grand Jury warned the residents of it “Inconvenient Truth” They are spending taxpayer money hiring word-crafting consultants, and conspiring to place tax measures on the ballots again using taxpayer money to make sure it will pass if put on the ballots. You will notice the Yes on W Team can’t name one citizen that came before the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and asked Please place another 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot to make SMC even more expensive to live in.
It will be interesting to see the communications e-mails, memos, letters, between the power players of San Mateo County that caused Measure W to be created in the first place, funded and passed by 552 votes in the last 2 days of a long count out of a total of 270, 612 votes.
San Mateo County has a new e-mail destruction policy I have written about starting February 1, 2019. I wonder why?
HILLSBOROUGH, CA – August 28 – Jim Hartnett and Rosanne Faust attend Auxiliary of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of San Mateo County Annual Garden Party on August 28th 2016 at Private Garden in Hillsborough in Hillsborough, CA (Photo – Susana Bates for Drew Altizer Photography)
Supervisor Carlos Groom
Supervisor Dave Pine
Supervisor Warren Slocum
Supervisor Don Horsley
SMC Supervisor David Canepa
August 8, 2017 the Supervisors gave $350,000 of taxpayer money to Jim Hartnett to pay for the behind the scenes Outreach Consultants to work against the taxpayers.
See if the title for Agenda item 4 sounds honest: Study Session Regarding Transportation Obstacles, Opportunities, and Needs. The reason I ask is the Grand Jury reported the Supervisors mislead the residents to pass Measure A in 2102.