Category Archives: Heinz Puschendorf

Daly City Council Meeting tonight. Roger Allen was killed by Police, Public Comment welcome.

By Michael G. Stogner

Those Who Matter are holding a public meeting to hear your comments about the 4 Unnamed Daly City Police Officers who were Involved in the killing of Roger Allen a 44 year old Black man sitting in the passenger seat of a truck with a flat tire on April 7, 2021. The official statement from Daly City Elected Officials and Staff is that the FOUR Police Officers somehow arrived at the disabled vehicle and offered assistance. The result is at least one of them shot and killed Roger Allen while he was inside the vehicle. There was a female passenger sitting in the back of the truck when the shots were fired into the vehicle. The real question for the Elected Officials and Staff is what caused FOUR Daly City Police Officers to be at that truck on April 7, 2021 in the first place.

You will remember it was the Daly City Swat TEAM that got tired of waiting at Errol Chang’s family home in Pacifica. After being on the scene for a short amount of time, the order came in to finish it. Errol who was the only person inside the small home was not a threat to anybody, the house was completely surrounded, the public was safe. Errol was killed by the DCPD Swat Team minutes later. Who gave the order?

Redwood City Police and San Mateo County Sheriff Swat Teams had a very different result when they surrounded James (Jim) McGee’s home for 17.5 hours. Nobody got a scratch the difference he was a “Those Who Matter” individual a former Redwood City Police Officer.

Yesterday the Showboater found a reporter to make the obvious statement about Body Worn Cameras.

“Make no mistake about it, every city in San Mateo County should have body cameras,” said David Canepa, who represents Daly City and other areas as president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. “It’s in the best interest of the community to have the video and it’s in the best interest of the police officers.”

Body Worn Camera Videos can be edited within minutes just ask San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd. When I say edited here are just a few examples, Blurred, Captions and Deleting 2 seconds like what happened on the Chinedu V. Okobi video that was finally released to the Public 5 Months after he was killed by 6 San Mateo County Sheriff Employees. The video starts by listing the Involved Deputies it OMMITS CSO Joseph Gonzales you will see him join at 6:47 mark also note 7:02 he is at Chinedu’s head and next time you see him is 7:05 he is down by legs, what happened during those missing 3 seconds. Why was that cut out?

The real question is why did Those Who Matter Omit his name from being Involved.

Chinedu V. Okobi Homicide Video

Ask Showboater David Canepa President of the Board of Supervisors if he ever watched the Video. I asked all of the County Supervisors that question. Supervisor Dave Pine answered he had 3 times, He was the only one.

This next Video is Highly Edited, Captioned and promotes the False story that Sandra Harmon Fired first, there was a Shootout. There is no mention that the Deputy Fired first, Fired at an unarmed woman with her hands up above her head. No Mention she was shot at 14 times, 3 of which were fatal shots in her BACK. No mention the 3 Shell Casings were moved at the Crime scene. and the Best Part is the Deputy did not turn on his Body Worn Camera. Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, Inspector Jordan Boyd responsible for the Editing and Captions of the Video. San Mateo County Counsel Attorney David Silberman is responsible for obstructing the public right to get to the truth. The AXON LOG RECORDS would verify the BWC of Deputy Dominguez was turned off during the Homicide. Why is David Silberman taking that position?

Sandra L. Harmon Homicide Video

Ask Showboater David Canepa President of the Board of Supervisors if he ever watched the Sandra Harmon Homicide Video?

The key to Body Worn Camera Videos is that they be released ASAP, with NO EDITS, CAPTIONS. Otherwise they become the governments promotion of a false story.

Tonights Meeting at 7:00 PM If you would like to Speak about Roger Allen’s Homicide, Daly City is asking you to register early here is the Information.

 Here is the link to register to speak at the meeting via zoom: http://bit.ly/apr26zoomreg. Here is the meeting agenda.

“Those Who Matter” San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe is the source for that term. I remember when I first it, I thought to myself, Steve knows something that most San Mateo County Residents don’t. he was right.

Emails between San Mateo County’s top 4 Law Enforcement Officials involving two the Sheriff and Undersheriff being Caught and Detained by the FBI inside a single family residence in Las Vegas that had Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including a minor.

It’s Time for San Mateo County especially Daly City to get on the same page as America is changing. The minimum is to identify the officers involved. The next minimum is to have the Attorney General take over the investigation from Those Who Matter. That will never happen with Daly City’s current Elected Officials and Staff.

2 Comments

Filed under #2americas, #Blacklivesmatter, #Cheesecakelady, #corruptionmatters, #ElectedOfficialsReform, #EqualJusticeMatters, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, 3 Fatal Shots to the Back, 3 Shell Casings moved, Attorney General of California, AXON Log Records, Barbara Bonilla, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisor's President David Canepa, Body Camera Video, Chinedu Okobi & George Floyd Homicide by Law Enforcement, Citizen Journalist, City of Daly City, City of Daly City Manager Shawnna Maltbie, City of Millbrae, City of Pacifica, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, CSO Joseph Gonzales, Daly City Manager Shawnna Maltbie, Daly City Mayor Juslyn Manalo, Daly City Police Chief Patrick Hensley, David Burruto, David Khan, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, Errol Chang R.I.P., Evidence Tampering, Former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez, Government Hiding the Obvious, Heinz Puschendorf, HMB City Manager Bob Nesbit, HMB Deputy City Manager Matthew Chidester, James P. Fox, Jeff Maltbie, John Maltbie, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Kevin Mullin, Law Enforcement Reform, Marshall Wilson, Matthew Graves, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, NAACP, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Public Corruption, Rachel Amanda Quintana, Redwood City Police Chief Dan Mulholland, Retired RWCPD Officer James (Jim) McGee, Roger Allen R.I.P., RWC Manager Diaz, Melissa Stevenson, SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Carlos City Manager Jeff Maltbie, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Deputy David Dominguez, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy John Baba, Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P., Sergeant David Weidner, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Sergeant Luis Dejesus Aquino for DUI, SMC Sheriff's Activities League, SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell, SMCSO Michael E. Otte, SMCSO Sgt. Irfan Zaidi, Steve Wagstaffe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Joyce Blair, Susan J. Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P., Zain Jaffer

Why both privacy and public safety matter with license plate reader data.

Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos

Carlos Bolanos

As the sheriff of San Mateo County, I am dedicated to protecting public safety and the privacy of our residents. In response to a recent opinion article on automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology, I wanted to provide our county’s residents with the facts about the technology and how the data is used, shared and retained by law enforcement.California law enforcement agencies are required to have and post ALPR usage and privacy policies to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing and dissemination of the information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties.Law enforcement agencies use ALPR technology to automate manual processes that help identify stolen vehicles, vehicles used by wanted suspects, vehicles used by registered sex offenders, locating missing persons and, more importantly, to investigate criminal activity more efficiently. ALPR technology takes photos of license plates in public view and runs the scanned images through a list of plates sought by law enforcement. The system collects the photo of the vehicle, license plate number and the location data. The system does not collect personal identifying information, such as birth dates, names or criminal history. My office’s ALPR data is retained for a maximum of one year unless the information is from an ALPR that has been deployed within an area wherein the local government has requested a shorter retention period.Our data is not shared with unvetted third-party organizations. Only law enforcement personnel with a need and right to know the information may have access to the data. On the topic of ALPR data sharing and immigration enforcement, we do not share any ALPR data with “ICE to track undocumented immigrants, who have committed no offense other than trying to make a life for themselves in California without documentation,” as stated in the guest perspective “Why license plate privacy matters” authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, in the April 7 edition of the Daily Journal. ALPR databases in California may not be accessed for the sole purpose of immigration enforcement as required by the California Values Act. Misuse of data by law enforcement personnel may be cause for administrative, civil and criminal penalties. Currently, Senate Bill 210 seeks to limit the retention of ALPR records to 24 hours. This would not improve privacy, but it would limit our ability to investigate violent crimes, serial criminal activity and any other crime that takes more than 24 hours to identify suspects, locate witnesses and locate victims. If the bill were passed into law, it would reduce or eliminate our ability to solve some of our most serious criminal offenses. In one example of the use of ALPR data, a suspect in Daly City exposed himself as he attempted to grab a 12-year-old female victim, who was fortunately able to escape the assault. The victim provided Daly City Police Department with a description of the suspect and his vehicle. After reviewing thousands of ALPR images, they found a match. The system was then used to locate the vehicle in San Francisco. The suspect was ultimately arrested in San Francisco for the assault on the child and for being in violation his sex offender registration. Under SB 210, the evidence that led to the identification and arrest of the suspect would have been destroyed before investigators had the opportunity to review the images.In another example, a robbery occurred at a shopping center in the city of San Mateo and witnesses provided San Mateo Police Department with the suspects’ license plate number. The car was registered in Madera, California. Historical ALPR records provided information that the vehicle had been parked multiple times in Redwood City at the same location. Redwood City police responded to the vehicle’s historical parking location and found the car with the suspects inside. San Mateo police transported the victim to the location in Redwood City, where the suspects were positively identified, and the stolen property was recovered. Historical ALPR data quickly located suspects that had no fear of harming the public and brought them to justice. Under SB 210, the historical ALPR data would have been destroyed and law enforcement would have been looking for suspects 150 miles away.I am deeply committed to public safety and the protection of privacy. I want the public to know that historical ALPR data helps us to focus our limited resources to solve crimes and save lives. I also wanted to clear up any misunderstanding regarding how we use this invaluable law enforcement tool in our community, while protecting privacy. Please visit our website to learn more about our ALPR policy and how we serve our community with pride, commitment, integrity, compassion and innovation.Carlos Bolanos is the San Mateo County sheriff.

Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos’ Opinion Piece above was sent to the San Mateo Daily Journal he chose not to publish it on the Sherif’s Office Website.

SMCSO Website

Some Residents of San Mateo County know that Carlos G. Bolanos was illegally appointed to the position of Sheriff on July 12, 2016 by the Supervisors of San Mateo County. It was not on the Agenda , Supervisor Don Horsley who was asked to recuse himself from that issue because his son is employed by the Sheriff’s Office lead the appointment through.

It’s telling that Sheriff Bolanos uses a minor female sexual assault victim as an example of why ALPR are great.

In one example of the use of ALPR data, a suspect in Daly City exposed himself as he attempted to grab a 12-year-old female victim, who was fortunately able to escape the assault. When on April 21, 2007 Carlos Bolanos was Detained in Las Vegas during the FBI Sting “Operation Dollhouse” He was caught inside the single family residence located at 3474 Eldon Street where a minor female was the victim of Human Trafficking of Sex Slaves.

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #CarlosBolanos, #Cheesecakelady, #citizenoversight, #corruptionmatters, #EqualJusticeMatters, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Barbara Bonilla, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, FBI special agent David Staretz, Government Hiding the Obvious, Heinz Puschendorf, Jerry Hill, Jody L. Williams, John Warren, Kevin Mullin, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Nobody is above the Law., Outrageous Government Conduct, Public Corruption, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rosanne Faust, SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo Daily Journal, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Sheriff's Activities League, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, Steve Wagstaffe, Susan J. Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe served Petition 50K signatures Chinedu V. Okobi R.I.P.

 

 

Video

14:30 mark, Steve Wagstaffe says “For True Independence” “I understand peoples perception.”

Below are e-mails of back and forth between San Mateo County Sheriff and District Attorney on the very first day the public was learning about our two top Sheriffs being caught and detained/transported by the Las Vegas Metro Police/FBI as customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including a minor. You will see the unhealthy support and the destain for the media.

Carlos is Carlos G. Bolanos who was Illegally Appointed to Sheriff July 12, 2016 by the Board of Supervisors.

emails&literature

Every time I see San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe talk to people of color, I think there should be a warning, He is a racist and a liar according to these Judges. The 5 County Supervisors and their Staff all know this.

IV. Conclusion

Taken as a whole, the record compels a finding that the prosecutor’s non-race based reasons for peremptorily striking M.C. were pretexts.   The fact that the prosecutor peremptorily struck the only other African-American juror in the jury pool and provided at least two implausible reasons for that challenge reinforces this conclusion.   We therefore hold that both the California Court of Appeal and the district court clearly erred when they found that Ali failed to establish purposeful discrimination.   We further hold that, in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating that the prosecutor in Ali’s case acted with discriminatory intent when he struck M.C., the California appellate court’s finding to the contrary was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.   See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).   We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring Ali’s release from custody, unless the State elects to retry Ali within a reasonable time to be determined by the district court.

9th District Court

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Citizen Journalist, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Heinz Puschendorf, John Beiers, John Burris, John Warren, Judicial Misconduct, Matthew Graves, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, NAACP, Positional Asphyxia, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Ramsy Saad, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sergeant David Weidner, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, Silicon Valley, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, World Surf League

San Mateo County’s E-mail Deletion Policy, Put on Hold by Mike Callagy

mc_portrait_squareArtboard 1

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy

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.

November 7, 2018 one day after the election Retention Policy par. J

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.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #OperationDollhouse, #OperationLooseEnds, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

“Those Who Matter”against Quality of Life in San Mateo County. Measure W.

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?

SMCN.com Article County deleting e-mails

THE GAME

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Greg Conlon, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SamTrans, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yes on Measure A 2012

Greg Conlon to Supervisors, Fund the recount of Measure W.

December 11, 2018 San Mateo County Board of Supervisor Meeting, Public comment.

 

December 4, 2018 Supervisor Meeting, Heinz Puschendorf, Fund the recount.

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Lennie Roberts, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Ron Collins, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

Why SMC Supervisors should pay for the recount of Measure W.

 

 

 

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.

2012 Grand Jury Report

August 8, 2017 BOS meeting click on #4,7

Heinz Puschendorf requesting the recount of Measure W

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012

San Mateo County Government E-mails should be preserved not deleted.

Why would government want to delete, destroy e-mails? E-mails should be preserved permanently. They show the public the behind the scenes communications between elected officials who have taken an oath, and high ranking appointed officials who are supposed to represent the public’s best interest.

Below is just one example of 4 top SMC Officials communicating their support of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves being used for their personal pleasure, and their distain for the media. All 5 Supervisors shared the same idea.  These e-mails are 11 years old and still current when you add what is happening to Jody L. Williams today in SMC by Steve Wagstaffe, and John Warren.

emails&literature

SMC E-mail Policy November 7, 2018

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.

From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To: Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM PST
Subject: Re: Status on the e-mail deletion policy
That might be just fine, but as you can see very few people even know about this and you can stop this for a 6 month review period starting today until you decide the proper time period to hold e-mails like 20 years etc.
Michael
On Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:09:10 AM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael,

As I understand it, the policy has been in place for years and that is the info I’m trying to obtain.  I think ISD realized we were not reaching our objective to get rid of the clutter of emails in the system, so this policy was brought back to address that.  I’m trying to find out exactly how this came back up, but it was in the works well before Nov. 2018.
Best regards,

Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike,
It looks like November 7, 2018 is when this 90 day old e-mails are to be deleted Policy was created by ISD, Who came up with this if Not You?

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

NUMBER: F-2

SUBJECT: E-Mail Policy

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Information Services Department (ISD)

DATE: November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

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.
As you and most County Officials and staff know I am a Private Victim’s Advocate and have worked on behalf of several San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and employees. Just to mention a few, Female Deputy who reported Rape Video on County Computers being viewed and shared with upper management of the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez being abused by San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, David Silberman and others including Carlos G. Bolanos,Steve Wagstaffe, John Warren, Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf who has not been unable to get to his emails. Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas connected to Operation Dollhouse recently criminally charge in SMC. Measure A,K,W e-mails. Zain Jaffer criminal 8 felony case dismissed for lack of evidence, (sure) I can think of 60,000,000 reasons this case was dismissed. Yanira Serrano-Garcia murdered by Sheriff Deputy, Errol Chan Murdered by Swat, Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell DV Call to 911, James McGee 17.5 hour standoff two Swat teams after 911 call for DV no DV charges. Ramsey Saad R.I.P.
That is a short list. Please consider this a formal request to save all emails regarding any of the people and subjects mentioned above.
This subject should be discussed with the public before ANY e-mails are deleted. What is the cost to keep them?
I hope you will stop this today.
Michael G. Stogner
On Friday, January 25, 2019, 6:12:20 PM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael, I’m still researching this as I want to be clear when this policy started.  The policy, as I understand it, has been around a long time. It is a matter of now enforcing it.  Im trying to determine how far back the policy goes.  We don’t have unlimited storage for emails so there has to be controls in place.  Employees are encouraged to save their emails and put them in files.  It is an easy process.  I will get you the history soon.  Have a nice weekend. Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 25, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Good morning Michael,
What is the status on the County wide policy to delete e-mails after they are 90 days old starting Feb 1, 2019?
By your response it looks like it was not your policy, Who’s policy is it?
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Kristina Paszek <kpaszek@smcgov.org>
To:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com
Jan 16 at 4:28 PM

Dear Mr. Stogner,

Your correspondence of January 11 to Carole Groom was forwarded to our office for response.  I also understand that you recently sent a follow-up e-mail today to Supervisor Groom.  This e-mail will respond to both of your e-mails.

The County’s e-mail policy is set forth in the attached Administrative Memo F-2, which was developed (and is revised from time to time) by the County’s Information Services Department, subject to approval by the County Manager.  The provisions concerning the deletion of e-mail were adopted in April 2015 around the time that the County switched from Groupwise to Outlook for its e-mail.

The County’s e-mail policy is distinct from the County and department-specific records retention policies that are approved by the Board of Supervisors.  With respect to what appear to be your concerns, although the e-mail policy reiterates that the County’s e-mail system is not intended to be a means of records storage, it recognizes that some e-mail messages that are generated or received through the County’s computer systems constitute records that must be retained pursuant to the County’s or a department’s records retention policy (or due to threatened or actual litigation), and it details how those e-mail messages are to be retained.  The e-mail policy does not impact each department’s responsibility to retain records in accordance with state law.  As explained in the policy, all e-mails that are determined to be records to be retained for business or legal reasons are to be saved.  There are a number of ways to retain such e-mails, as detailed in the policy, but we expect that in most cases, a user will simply place the e-mail in an e-mail subfolder.  A user can create e-mail subfolders and set a 1-year, 2-year, 10-year retention or mark the folder(s) to be kept permanently.  In addition, a mailbox that is being held for litigation will not be subjected to any automatic deletion until after the litigation is resolved.

Regards,

Kristina Paszek

Deputy County Counsel

San Mateo County Counsel’s Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel:  650-363-4989

Fax:  650-363-4034

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Kristina Paszek
Cc:Carole Groom,Don Horsley,Warren Slocum,Dave Pine,Dave Canepaand 3 more…
Jan 17 at 5:57 PM
Dear Kristina,
Thank You for your response on behalf of Board of Supervisor President Carole Groom, I’m still not sure why she couldn’t have just answered my questions directly. I now have more questions regarding the policy to delete e-mails after 90 days.  How many of San Mateo County employees have received the memo and how did they get it and when did they get it. How many managers have taken a training course on how to preserve e-mails? How many employees have taken a training course in this policy? What method was used to notify and prepare the employees for this policy?
It might be best for everyone involved to hit the stop/pause button on this policy.
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Carole Groom,Dave Canepa,Dave Pine,Don Horsley,Warren Slocumand 3 more…
Jan 16 at 10:03 AM

Dear San Mateo County Supervisors,

5 days ago I asked President of Board of Supervisors to tell me if the BOS approved this policy. To this day Carole Groom has refused to answer that simple question.

Again I’m asking who is responsible for this idea and policy? What is the status as of today. There are only 15 days left before this terrible/unlawful policy takes effect.

The Public has a right to know this information.

my previous e-mail 1/11/2019

Hello Carole,

Could you please tell me if the Board of Supervisors approved this and if so what date and agenda item was it. I’m doing a follow up story on this subject and wanted to know who is responsible for this policy.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

Co-owner of San Mateo County News

Looking forward to getting a response from any of you today.

Sincerely.

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

1 Comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Adrienne Tissier, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, Juan P. Lopez, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

Jim Sutton Yes on Measure W attorney objects.

 

jimsutton_bio

Who hired Attorney Jim Sutton? He showed up at 40 Tower Road and objected to a minuscule amount of ballots being audited. He wanted it to be official and go on the record that he objected to this action.

“It’s shocking that they had 4 Supervisors and 12 employees working 8 or 9 hours working on this all because the losing side kind of brow beat them into doing so.”

“Under the law the only way that one side has the right to ask for documents to be re-reviewed is through a recount that they pay for.” That is true, That is where San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf comes into play. He as a citizen resident and voter in SMC is doing just that. A recount by hand of every single ballot for Measure W.

Heinz Puschendorf BOS meeting 12/4/2018

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Letters to Editors, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Palo Alto Daily Post, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012

When it comes to elections – is San Francisco that much smarter than San Mateo County.. or is SMC simply corrupted ? 

 

qHcZ9YQO_400x400

Brent Turner

For many years election system security experts have been whistle-blowing on Microsoft based vendor sold voting systems that utilize proprietary “secret ” software rather than a publicly viewable ” open source ” code. Experts state plainly that to defend against outside ( or insider ) interference an open source environment is preferred.  NASA and the DOD utilize open source for mission critical operations.. and now New Hampshire has deployed the better systems. The systems are far less expensive and eliminate vulnerabilities to the point of being referenced as ” unhackable “
San Francisco County, just north of San Mateo County, CA has done extensive studies over a ten year period and now started the build-out of their open source / paper ballot voting system. The current voting machine vendors do not want SF County to accomplish this effort, and pioneering watchdog groups like California Association of Voting Officials ( www.cavo-us.org ) and CAVO is actively protecting the project against the derailing effects that have befallen other jurisdictions ( Travis County , TX and Los Angeles ) attempting to move away from the previously :”locked in”  price gauging vendors.
The scenario is historic Davey vs Goliath as Microsoft and those who” bob in their wake ” scurry to delay the public systems while setting up to sell another round ( at a price tag over eight BILLION dollars ) of the scientifically concluded insecure systems. Money in the form of political contributions continues to flow toward decision makers.. and activists accuse the blocking politicians of putting personal gain before country and the national security. Recently U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard worked with CAVO to put forth a federal bill advocating open source election systems
So what’s up with San Mateo County ? As the technology capitol of the world, it would be natural for SMC to lead the advancements .. or at least follow San Francisco’s lead as a next door county. Could it be San Francisco politicians are that much more intelligent than those in San Mateo County.. or is it rather  just corruption ?  Let’s look at the Supervisors and some  other elected folks..
Many years back Supervisor Warren Slocum was a major player bringing in the flawed voting systems that are now notorious as a national security threat. San Mateo County Supervisor ( and former registrar ) Slocum sweated profusely while presenting his case for purchasing the ” corporate / secret ” voting systems and prompted the League Of Women to join his advocacy. Upon direct questioning by this writer the LWV lead Jackie Jacobberger confessed ignorance regarding voting system security and promised to never advocate at Slocum;s urging again. It appeared “business as usual” occurred during that initial purchase, and the Texas based  Hart Company scored a windfall.
Slocum then went on to join the board at Verified Voting, a group notable for  destroying an open source voting project in Texas,and also for  absorbing millions of dollars ( with no results )  in  grant monies from federal voting projects.
Supervisor David Pine may not be  directly corrupted but is apparently suffering from the controlling “persuasion” of notorious  staff. Burruto is a controller of party politics and has been a staunch political opponent of open source voting  The other SMC Supervisors Groom and Horsley seem to blindly  follow behind Slocum and Pine apparently  oblivious to their duties  to country and democracy.
Relief is available to San Mateo County but it takes courage. Silicon donors that make or break politicians do not like the election system security solution as it involves a free software that out performs what they are selling. With the spotlight now on San Mateo County to join San Francisco’s efforts to set voting system security precedent, it will be interesting to see how the San Mateo Board of Supervisors deal with this circumstance.
_______________________________________-
Brent Turner is a  native of San Mateo County.Mr. Turner is recognized as a civil rights activist and a catalyst for sustainability

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Heinz Puschendorf, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Sabrina Brennan, San Mateo County Elections Office, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Warren Slocum