Category Archives: LATIMES Reporter Emily Alpert Reyes

“Wine Country Marines” James Brown mentions “Money Laundering”

By Michael G. Stogner

I see “$10M CASH” of “federal taxpayer dollar purchased productions” I don’t see a big mess, I don’t see “Surplus”

Money Laundering was the first thought that came to my mind, when I read and watched ABC 7 News report.

This is from ABC 7 Investigative Reporter Dan Noyes who first reported this Thursday January 13, 2022 at 6:12 P.M.

“We don’t want anybody to take this and put it on eBay because that’s in essence money laundering, you’re taking federal taxpayer dollar purchased productions and you’re turning it into cash for you,” Brown said, continuing, “We’re not going to allow that, but what we do want to do is get this into the hands of any organization that serves the community. If you’re out there serving the homeless or doing a food kitchen or a shelter, if you’re treating patients, any of that.”

Who in San Mateo County Government gave James Brown the $10,000,000 of PPE aka federal taxpayer dollar purchased productions?

This action happened before January 13, 2022 at 6:00 P.M. When Wine Country Marines Facebook page said

Large Donation of PPE
Updated: 2 days ago

The Wine Country Marines are excited to announce a partnership with the San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management. Specifically, the County DEM has graciously donated to the Wine Country Marines a very large supply of excess inventory of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) that they were provided by FEMA, to be shared with the community at large.

So James Brown (whoever he is) announced San Mateo County Graciously Donated to the (Wine Country Marines) whoever they are the $10,000,000.00 of PPE. 12 minutes before Dan Noyes reported the story.

Dan Noyes ABC 7 News was first to report this on January 13, 2022

Leave a comment

Filed under #newsbreak, #OperationDollhouse,, $10M PPE left outside San Mateo County, Associated Press,, “You don’t want to be investigating your own agency.", Bay Area News Group, Bay Cities News Foundation,, Board of Supervisors, Board of Supervisors President Don Horsley, BUSINESS WIRE, businessinsider, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Judicial Branch News Service, Citizen Journalist, City of San Mateo, Colin Kaepernick, Congresswoman Ana Eshoo, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Da Award-winning documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter Dan Noyes, Dan Noyes Investigative Reporter ABC News, DEM has graciously donated to the Wine Country Marines, Emergency Operations Center, Evidence Tampering, Facebook, Felony misappropriation of public money.,, Foster City News, Global SaaS founders, executives and venture capitalists, Google,, I don't need to be invited, I'm a Tax Payer, James Brown, James Brown of the Wine Country Marines, Jon Mays Editor of the San Mateo Daily Journal, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., LATIMES Reporter Emily Alpert Reyes, Local Media Consortium, Los Angeles Times., Making San Mateo County Safer,,, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Money Laundering, Monterey Naval Postgraduate School,, Negligence, Not California Rain., New Media Investment Group,,, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Operation Dollhouse a Drug Drop?, Organized Crime, PPE (Personal Protective Equipement,, Public Corruption, Rob Bonta Attorney General of California, SaaS Community, SaaStr CEO and Founder Jason Lemkin., SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management, San Mateo County Event Center, San Mateo County Event Center CEO, Dana Stoehr, San Mateo County Investigating Itself., San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy, San Mateo County Money Laundering, San Mateo County, San Mateo County Sheriff's Activities League a Criminal Organization,, Stop the Give Away of $10M PPE Today, The New York Times, The Palo Alto Daily Post, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Violation of Oath, Wine Counrty Marines, Zain Jaffer Wants to Help Others

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