Category Archives: John Myers LATIMES

Family Court Judges, Rule on Unvaccinated Parents and Children. “This child needs to be protected.”

By Michael G. Stogner

Everybody and their mother knew this day was coming, as if Family Law Courts were not expensive enough as they are. But this is an issue that the parents are bringing on themselves. Judges around the Country are making rulings to protect the Children when one of the Parents chooses not too. Also now being Vaccinated is part of the Custody equation. If a parent refuses to get vaccinated or refuses to get his/her children vaccinated it could/will impact the outcome of which parent gets custody.

Today LATIMES Article

Family courts weigh in on vaccinations
What happens when one divorced parent hasn’t gotten the shot? Judges take up issue.
By Emily Alpert Reyes
Flanked by their lawyers, the divorced parents hashed out an agreement outside the Pasadena courtroom and returned to inform the judge: They had agreed their young son would get the COVID-19 vaccine.
“Absolutely he needs to be vaccinated,” Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Harvey A. Silberman said.
Then he asked the parents: “Are the two of you vaccinated?”
The mother said yes. The father said no. “Sir, you better get vaccinated,” the judge said, according to a court transcript. “Or you could very well lose time with your child unless you have a medical reason not to.”
As children and teens have become eligible for COVID-19 shots, divorced parents have clashed in court over whether to get kids vaccinated. In some cases — including the one now before a judge in Los Angeles County — family courts have also started to weigh in on parents being vaccinated against the coronavirus.
In Illinois, a judge made headlines after ruling that a mother could not see her 11-year-old son until she had gotten vaccinated, a decision that was later rescinded.
In New York, a father was suspended from visits unless he got vaccinated or underwent regular testing. “The danger of voluntarily remaining unvaccinated during access with a child while the COVID-19 virus remains a threat to children’s health and safety cannot be understated,” Judge Matthew F. Cooper wrote.
Attorney Lloyd C. Rosen, who represents the New York father, said his client is getting tested regularly in order to keep seeing his daughter but has filed a notice to preserve his right to appeal the ruling.
Rosen argued that the court had overstepped. Vaccinations and other medical decisions often come up in custody cases, since “it’s not uncommon for parents to disagree regarding medical care or treatment for a child,” he said.
“Here the court is not stepping in and making a decision for the child that the parents can’t make,” Rosen said.
“The court here is stepping in and making a decision for a parent regarding themselves — as a condition to their parental rights.”
Cooper, the judge in that case, wrote that the question was not whether he could require an adult to be vaccinated, which “would stretch the authority of a matrimonial court to unprecedented lengths,” but whether the mother could make vaccination or testing a condition of the father visiting the child.
At the L.A. County hearing, the divorced father said he had medical reasons for not being vaccinated, but Silberman seemed skeptical. In a court order, he directed the father to either provide a medical exemption from his doctor or show that he had gotten vaccinated against COVID-19.
If the father genuinely has a health reason for not getting vaccinated, “I want to know what the medical evidence is,” Silberman said during the hearing. “This child needs to be protected.”
The move surprised attorney Patrick Baghdaserians, who represents the mother. Although Baghdaserians said he is aware of judges supporting COVID-19 shots for children when the issue has arisen in custody cases, “I’ve never seen a judge take the next step, which is … if one of the parents is not vaccinated, that potentially exposes the child to harm.”
Baghdaserians praised the judge and said that if the order were ignored, his client would seek to change the custody arrangement. The mother is supportive of COVID-19 vaccination, he said.
Attorney Alphonse Provinziano, who represents the father, said his client had asked him not to comment on his specific case. He said that in general, California family courts have wide latitude to seek information from parents, but he was unaware of any legal authority for them to change custody based on vaccination status.
Provinziano said it’s possible that someone could try to make such a case by arguing that, “ ‘Well, I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the child’ ” for a parent to not be vaccinated. But “that, I think, would end up going to the Supreme Court of California. … It would be a heavily litigated case.”
Provinziano also argued that, in general, if a parent has a medical reason to not be vaccinated, “you can’t use that disability to say that you’re somehow unable to be a parent to your child.” He pointed to a California ruling that found courts cannot use a physical disability as evidence of whether someone is a fit parent.
The Times is not naming the parents involved in the court case in order to protect the privacy of their child.
In response to questions sent for the judge, a Los Angeles County Superior Court spokeswoman said Silberman was prohibited under ethics canons from making any public comments on a pending case.
Rachel Rebouché, interim dean at Temple University Beasley School of Law, said most state statutes that govern child custody are very broad, centering on “the best interests of the child.”
For instance, courts have been able to restrict visitation rights if a parent lives with a partner who is deemed unsafe for the child, Rebouché said.
In California, courts scrutinize the ability of parents to care for the child, she said, so “whether or not the parent will seek to protect the child from COVID is relevant to the court.”
Still, Rebouché said the L.A. County case and others raise questions about “where are the lines that you draw for what courts can permissibly require parents to do with threat of a custody loss.”
If some people see not getting vaccinated as an issue of religious freedom, “is losing time with a child a denial of that right? Or is it something else?” she asked.
John F. Banzhaf III, professor emeritus of public interest law at George Washington University Law School, argued that there is a strong precedent for courts’ limiting visitation for unvaccinated parents: child custody cases involving cigarette smokers. Family courts have ordered parents who smoke to stop doing so in their homes for 24 or 48 hours before a child visits, Banzhaf said.
In some cases, judges have denied custody to a parent because “the very fact that you would continue smoking around the child, knowing the risk, knowing how widely publicized the risks are, suggests to me a lack of concern” for their health, Banzhaf said.
The legal debate revolves around the protective effects of the vaccines not just for the recipient, but for children and teens around them. Vaccinated people can spread the virus, but health officials have stressed they are much less likely to get infected in the first place, reducing the likelihood they will pass it along.
Rosen, the attorney representing the New York father, argued that even if the father got vaccinated, that would not eliminate the possibility of him getting and transmitting the coronavirus. He also noted that the child goes to day care with other children.
“There’s just so many different ways this child could be exposed to COVID that to single out the father and make his access conditional upon his vaccination status is not only inappropriate, but well beyond any kind of reasonable determination in the best interests of the child,” Rosen said.
Banzhaf argued there was strong evidence for the risks posed to a child by spending time inside with an unvaccinated parent. In fact, he said, “the evidence is far clearer than we used to have with regard to secondhand tobacco smoke” in custody cases.
What will happen for the father in the L.A. County court case remains to be seen. Silberman gave the man roughly a month to provide the documents he requested, which he would review privately.
At the November hearing, Silberman told the father, “I hope you do have a genuine health reason for preventing you from getting” the vaccine. “I just want to know what that is.”

This was totally Predictable, I recommend every person read the Crimson Contagion Functional Exercise of 2019. I did in March 2020.

Best of Health to everyone.

Leave a comment

Filed under "Danger of remaining unvaccinated", "Threat to Childrens Health and Safety, #newsbreak,, Associated Press, “Are the two of you vaccinated?”, “Sir, you better get vaccinated,”, “The court here is stepping in and making a decision for a parent regarding themselves — as a condition to their parental rights.”, California Judicial Branch News Service, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Citizen Journalist, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Crimson Contagion Exercise 2019, Google, John Myers LATIMES, Judge Matthew F. Cooper, LATIMES Reporter Emily Alpert Reyes, Local Media Consortium, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Harvey A. Silberman, Making San Mateo County Safer, Michael G. Stogner,, Particle Media Inc,, Protect the Children, Protect the Residents of California

The Zain Jaffer case Records should be Studied not Destroyed.

By Michael G. Stogner

This case should be studied in every Law School in the United States of America.

On Monday January 3, 2022 at 10:00 AM the Hon. Judge Elizabeth M. Hill will hear a Motion to Destroy all of the Records and Body Worn Camera Video from the Hillsborough Police Department. This same motion was on calendar for December 20, 2021 where DDA Sharon Cho informed Judge Barbara Mallach that the District Attorney’s Office had ISSUES with this and filed a Motion to Continue which was Granted.

These Records have been sealed from the very beginning, the Public has never had access to these records. Why? Here is the Very Little information that we do know.

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:

Remember John Doe was Zain Jaffer’s 3 year old son.

Steve Wagstaffe Article e-mail to Media fails to mention his intention to Dismiss Entire Case.

The Odyssey Portal Superior Court Records for People vs. Zainali Jaffer 17NF012415A shows this criminal case was first filed on February 13, 2018. That is 14 days after Steve Wagstaffe’s e-mail to reporter Emily. How does that happen?

Was Steve Wagstaffe’s e-mail to Emily Mibach a Violation of the Court Order to Seal the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts?

Superior Court of California County of San Mateo Website

Click on Search Case Records, Click on Accept, lower right hand corner, Click Odyssey Portal, Click Odyssey Portal No Registration Required, Scroll to bottom, Click Odyssey Public Portal, Click Smart Search, enter 17NF012415A

1 Comment

Filed under "Life is great here in San Mateo County" Wagstaffe, "The Magic Meeting", #corruptionmatters, #SanMateoCountyNews,,, Associated Press, Attorney Daniel Olmos, Attorney Patrick Clancy,, Bay Cities News Foundation, bizjournals, Blackstone,, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Judicial Branch News Service, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti retired within 90 days of the Magic Meeting., Citizen Journalist, Court Executive Officer Neal I Taniguchi, COVID-19, Dave Price Editor of the Palo Alto Daily Post, DDA Sharon Cho, Defense Attorney Pezhman Pakmeshan, Diminished Capacity is No Excuse for Criminal Conduct, Firoz Jaffer,, Google, Hillsborough Police Department, Hillsborough Police Officer Peter Gould, Hillsborough Police Officer Rey, Hon Stephanie Garratt, Hon. Judge Leland Davis III, Hon. Judge Robert Foiles, Hon. Judge Tani G. Cantil-Sakaye,, John Myers LATIMES, John Ullom, Jon Mays Editor of the San Mateo Daily Journal, June 7, 2018 The Private Meeting at the District Attorney's Office, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., Kevin Mullin, Making San Mateo County Safer, Martin Romualdez Jiu-Jitsu Instructor,, Michael G. Stogner,, Never too late to Investigate,,, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Organized Crime, Pacifica Tribune, Palo Alto Daily Post, People vs. Juan Pablo Lopez case NF433910A, People vs. Zainali Jaffer 17NF012415A,, Public Corruption, Recordings of Court Cases Must be Allowed, Reporter Emily Mibach, Rob Bonta Attorney General of California, S.F. Gate, San Jose Mercury News, San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd, San Mateo County, sanfrancisco.cbslocal, Single Point Data Base for Whistleblowers, Sitrick and Company,, state of unconsciousness caused by prescription medication. , Stuart Pfeifer of Sitrick and Company, Superior Court of California San Mateo County Assistant Presiding Judge Elizabeth K. Lee, Superior Court of California San Mateo County Presiding Judge Leland Davis III, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Joyce Blair,,, Terry Fahn of Sitrick and Company, The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, What day was the Preliminary Hearing held?, Zain Jaffer, Zain Jaffer case Preliminary Hearing SEALED., Zain Jaffer Wants to Help Others

X 49er Aldon Smith BAC was reported to be .288

By Michael G. Stogner


This is a “Those who Matter” case, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos provided NO BOOKING PHOTO or PRESS/NEWS RELEASE of the arrest. Why?

That is the first Tell. The 2nd Tell is Defense Attorney Josh Bentley, The 3rd Tell District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe filed this case as a Misdemeanor 21-SM instead of a 21-SF which is a FELONY.

Smith declined a field sobriety test but later took a blood test that showed a blood-alcohol content of .288 percent, District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe confirmed Thursday. Smith spent the night in jail. (source San Jose Mercury News Michael Nowels)

By declining a sobriety test at the scene, you forfeit California Drivers License for 1 year, unless you are one of the “Those Who Matter” TEAM.

If he was a BAC of .288 why is he charged with a 0.08?

San Mateo County has a First Chance DUI program for 1st time offenders. To my knowledge it does not have a 4th or 5th Chance DUI Program.

San Mateo County does have Defense Attorney Josh Bentley, Watch this case, it is going to be exciting.

TMZ was the first to report the arrest on December 6, 2021.

When I say watch this case, I mean show up to Court IN PERSON. A reasonable thinking person would know that there is a COVID-19 Pandemic in San Mateo County at this time. Listening by phone to the Court Hearings would be a lot safer you would think. Superior Court of California County of San Mateo Presiding Judge Leland Davis III thinks just the opposite. He cancelled Public Access by Telephone on November 22, 2021.

If you do attend the next Court date don’t be surprised if Aldon Smith and Josh Bentley appear remotely for safety reasons. Who would blame them. Stay Safe

Next court date January 4, 2022

1 Comment

Filed under #closeSMCcourtsuntilfixed, #corruptionmatters, #prosecutorialmisconductmatters,, #SMCJUSTICE, 21-SM-014538-A | The People of the State of California vs. Aldon Jacarus Ramon Smith, Aldon Jacarus Ramon Smith, Aldon Smith,, Associated Press, Attorney Josh Bentley,, Bay Area Transparency, Bay Cities News Foundation,, Booking Photo, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Judicial Branch News Service, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Citizen Journalist, City of Redwood City, Colin Kaepernick, Coronavirus, Court Clerk Katrina Bihl, Court Executive Officer Neal I Taniguchi, Court Reporter Jocelyne Fakouri, COVID-19, Deputy District Attorney Sean Gallagher, Facebook, Fair and Level Playing Field, FIRST CHANCE SOBERING STATION AND OUTPATIENT SERVICES, Fixin' San Mateo County, Former San Francisco 49er, Foster City News, Google, Hon. Judge Joseph Scott,, John Myers LATIMES, June 7, 2018 The Private Meeting at the District Attorney's Office, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., KQED, MADD, Making San Mateo County Safer, Michael G. Stogner, Never too late to Investigate,,, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Organized Crime, Outrageous Government Conduct, People vs. Juan Pablo Lopez case NF433910A, People vs. Zainali Jaffer 17NF012415A, Perjury, Public Corruption, Public Trust, Recordings of Court Cases Must be Allowed, Retired RWCPD Officer James (Jim) McGee, RICO, Rob Bonta Attorney General of California, S.F. Gate, SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Francisco 49ers, San Jose Mercury News, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Michael Otte Committed Perjury., San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Press Release, sanfrancisco.cbslocal, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Sergeant Luis Dejesus Aquino for DUI, SMCSO Sergeant Irfan Zaidi, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Superior Court of California San Mateo County Presiding Judge Leland Davis III, The Auditor, The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect, Those Who Matter, TMZ, TMZ Sports, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, When government is the enemy, x Sheriff Deputy Colin Troy Smith, x Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Case RECORDING., Yahoo, YouTube Channel, Zain Jaffer, Zain Jaffer case Preliminary Hearing SEALED.

Hon. Judge Barbara Mallach, Deny this motion in Zain Jaffer case 17NF012415A, 12/20/2021

By Michael G. Stogner

Zain Jaffer

Update: This Motion to Destroy Records has been Continued to January 3, 2022

I think in the Interest of Fair Play and Level Playing Field, Judge Barbara Mallach should deny this motion for now. The Records are already SEALED, what is the hurry?

Diminished Capacity is no Excuse for Criminal Conduct.

Judge Mallach, I don’t know if this matters to you or not but the Hillsborough Police Chief stands by his Officers arrest including the Attempted Murder charge.

San Mateo County Article

I’m not saying there is any connection here, just Somebody filed this motion to SEAL and DESTROY ARREST & RELATED RECORDS of Zain Jaffer, On November 18, 2021 and 3 days later all courtroom telephone public access got cancelled.

Public Access Policy Updated 11/22/21 – The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect; proceedings are open to the public to attend in person.

11/18/2021 Petition to Seal and Destroy Arrest Record Filed (PC 851.8) Comment
CR-409 Petition to Seal Arrest & Related Records PC 851.91

12/20/2021 Motion hearings Judicial Officer
Mallach, Barbara J. Hearing Time 10:00 AM

Courtroom 2A

PC 851.91

The Short list of who wants these records Destroyed is the San Mateo County Government and of course Zain Jaffer and his Defense Team.

1 Comment

Filed under #corruptionmatters,, #WEARAMASK, AECOM,,,, Aramark, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Bay Cities News Foundation, BCDC, bizjournals, BKF, Blackstone,, BlueDot Inc., BUSINESS WIRE, businessinsider, California Judicial Branch News Service, Citizen Journalist,,, East Bay Times, Foster City News,, Google, Hillsborough Police Department, John Myers LATIMES, KQED, Making San Mateo County Safer,,,, Michael G. Stogner,,, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Pacifica Tribune, Palo Alto Daily Post, Patrick Clancy,,, Public Corruption, Public Trust, San Jose Mercury News, San Mateo County, sanfrancisco.cbslocal, Sean Gallagher, SMC Brady Officers, state of unconsciousness caused by prescription medication. , Steve Wagstaffe, Superior Court of California San Mateo County Presiding Judge Leland Davis III, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Joyce Blair,,, The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect, The Palo Alto Daily Post,, Victim's Advocate, Violation of Oath, Vungle, When government is the enemy,,, Zain Jaffer, Zain Jaffer case Preliminary Hearing SEALED.,

FPPC, “You don’t want to be investigating your own agency.” and they Didn’t.

By Michael G. Stogner

FPPC Commissioner Catherine Baker

Thank You, to the Los Angeles Times for following up on the complaint of Commissioner Catherine Baker. I think it’s fair to say that inquiry caused the Attorney Generals Office to get involved. Time for an AUDIT of the FPPC complaints. The FPPC had the complaint for 7 months and Never Investigated it.

The Complaint was filed in April 29, 2021 with FPPC Enforcement Division.
LATIMES November 12, 2021 Requested information about the Investigation.
November 12, 2021 FPDC Enforcement Division recused itself.

LATIMES Article November 23, 2021

Watchdog complaint hidden for months
Case against member of state Fair Political Practices Commission was filed in April.
STATE ATTY GEN. Rob Bonta has been asked to assume control of the inquiry into Catharine Baker, a member of the Fair Political Practices Commission. (Rich Pedroncelli Associated Press)
By John Myers
SACRAMENTO — A campaign finance investigation against a top official at California’s political watchdog agency sat in limbo and hidden from public view for months, raising questions about whether the government organization holds its own members to the same standard as candidates and campaigns across the state.
The complaint against Catharine Baker, a member of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and former Republican legislator, was filed in April with the agency’s enforcement division. On Nov. 12 — the same day The Times requested information regarding the case — the FPPC enforcement division recused itself from the investigation and asked state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to assume control.
“I’m very surprised by this,” said Bob Stern, former FPPC general counsel. “The question then becomes, what other cases are they not disclosing? Is this one bad example or typical of how they are operating?”
Commission Chairman Richard Miadich said he instructed staff members months ago to move the case to the attorney general and provided a copy of an email dated April 29 confirming that directive. But he said he didn’t know why the transfer of the case didn’t happen until just a few days ago.
“We have never had a situation where a sitting commissioner has had a complaint filed against them,” Miadich said Monday. “We needed some time to do our homework.”
A statement from Bonta’s office confirmed receipt of the documents but offered no other details.
Baker was appointed to the commission in December, one of five members who oversee the implementation and enforcement of California campaign finance laws. She served in the state Assembly from 2014 to 2018 representing portions of the eastern Bay Area and disputes the allegations contained in the anonymous complaint, submitted through the FPPC’s online system in April.
“The anonymous complaint is incorrect, both on the facts and on the law,” Baker said in a phone interview.
At issue is whether she failed to properly file paperwork related to a possible 2030 campaign for the Assembly and whether additional disclosure of donors was required when transferring $125,000 in leftover funds from her 2018 campaign committee to an account for a possible future campaign.
“Our filings were complete and accurate and filed on time with the advice of legal counsel to ensure full compliance,” she said.
Complaints made against political candidates and campaigns are reviewed by the state commission’s enforcement staff. If an investigation is launched, FPPC officials inform the parties in question and disclose the inquiry in an online system the public can access.
But after the staff examination into Baker’s activity began, the information was not displayed in the online database. Miadich told The Times that the agency’s “transparency portal” is designed to provide information on cases under the commission’s jurisdiction and that, in this case, the information being gathered by FPPC staff members didn’t fall under that category.
“At no point were we actively investigating this complaint,” he said.
On Nov. 12, The Times asked the commission’s press office whether an investigation into Baker was underway and, if so, the status of the inquiry. That same day, Chief Enforcement Officer Angela Brereton sent a letter to Bonta asking his department to take over the case.
“Because Commissioner Baker is currently in office, the Commission is recusing itself from this matter,” Brereton wrote, also noting that FPPC staff members “have not made any determination” on whether Baker had violated state campaign finance regulations.
Miadich said Monday that Brereton could have made clear that plans to transfer the case had been in the works for some time.
“I think it would have been helpful for her to contextualize that letter,” he said.
Stern, a co-author of California’s landmark Political Reform Act, said that the commission’s actions could be perceived to some as giving Baker special consideration and that FPPC investigators should have quickly handed the case over to Bonta.
“It’s all appearances,” he said. “You don’t want to be investigating your own agency, particularly commissioners.”

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #corruptionmatters, #SanMateoCountyNews,, Ali Winston Investigative Reporter, Attorney General of California, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Attorney Generals Office, “You don’t want to be investigating your own agency.", California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Citizen Journalist, David Burruto, FPPC Commissioner Catherine Baker, Government Hiding the Obvious, John Myers LATIMES, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., Kevin Mullin, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Outrageous Government Conduct, Public Corruption, Public Trust, SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, San Mateo County Elected Officials have NO QUESTIONS, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Sheriff's Activities League a Criminal Organization, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Investigated Itself SAL, Sheriff Captain Christina Corpus Investigated SAL, SMCSO Captain Christina Corpus Board member of SAL