Category Archives: Mark Olbert

Six4Three vs.FaceBook, Mark Zuckerberg

Update: The idea that Hon. Judge Swope would order Theadore Kramer to surrender his laptop cellphone and Passwords to San Mateo County Authorities by 8PM today is Nuts. Just look at what the Authorities are doing to Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez in his criminal case. R.E.A.C.T. Task force.

Today 2:00 PM in San Mateo County Superior Court 8A Hon. Judge V. Raymond Swope.

ALL PARTIES MUST APPEAR no telephonic appearances. That means people flying in from around the world.

 

30727422_1046328192172159_7715425602097905664_n

San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.

Not really sure what is left to talk about at this time since it looks like the Sealed Documents that the Judge ordered three years ago are now in the public domain from Europe. This was a two tiered Non Discloser Protective Order, Why?

To protect a favorite San Mateo County Employer?

San Mateo County Judges, Secret and Illegal Search Warrants, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez and Jody L. Williams, Vungle x CEO Zain Jaffer criminal cases come to mind.

Here is the court documents:

SIX4THREE v. Facebook, inc

By Michael G. Stogner

CNN Article

Note: I just went to post this on my personal FB page and for the first time in 10 years I was asked to sign in. That is pretty fast for a picture sharing social media platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Judges, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Steve Wagstaffe, Theodore Kramer, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

SamTrans is not waiting for the recount. Full steam ahead.

San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf is calling for a recount and they know it.They don’t mention the $650,000 of taxpayer money used against the taxpayers for Measure W. The measure only passed by about 500 votes. lets wait for the recount to be completed. That will give Mark Church time to explain where the additional 18,259 ballots came from. Mark Simon wrote a great piece in the Climate rwc and he stated that at the Absolute Deadline for receiving Ballots which was November 9, 2018, the ballots received by the elections office was 271,704.
November 27, 2018
Media Contact: Tasha Bartholomew, 650-508-7927
Measure W Passes, Will Provide $2.4 Billion for County Transportation Improvements
Today, the San Mateo County Elections Office released an updated report showing that San Mateo County voters have approved Measure W, which will create approximately $80 million per year in new investment to relieve traffic congestion and provide expanded mobility options for County residents. The results show that 66.87 percent of county voters supported the 30-year measure putting it above the required two-thirds threshold.
“We, with our partners, are grateful for this opportunity and we are prepared for the challenge of putting these funds to work to create transportation and traffic solutions for everyone who lives and works in San Mateo County,” said San Mateo County Transit District General Manager/CEO Jim Hartnett.  “Getting to this point was a tremendous team effort, and we are incredibly thankful to everyone who helped make it happen.  We were able to put Measure W on the ballot thanks to an extraordinary partnership with Assembly Member Kevin Mullin and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and it was successful thanks to tremendous efforts from the business community, transportation advocates, and residents, families, and workers throughout the County that committed such invaluable support.”
“Voters have spoken loud and clear a truth we’ve known for some time; that transportation and transit need substantial investment in order for us to solve our traffic problems,” said Transit District Board Chair Charles Stone. “There are projects and programs ready to go, from express buses to microtransit to reducing chokepoints at our highway interchanges. The funding provided by Measure W will help to make them a reality. My sincerest thanks go out to the people of San Mateo County for making their voices heard.”
The distribution of the funds will be shaped by the Congestion Relief Plan, which was a product of this community feedback and was developed to reflect how residents think transportation funding should be invested.  The Plan includes five investment categories designed to focus on advancing these priorities, while also addressing other important transportation needs:
  *  22.5 percent toward Countywide Highway Congestion Improvements to improve throughput and travel times on highway facilities in San Mateo County.
  *  12.5 percent toward Local Safety, Pothole and Congestion Relief Improvements for investment in local transportation priorities including efforts to separate the rail corridor from local roads, improve bicycle and pedestrian connections, incentivize transit options, and improve traffic flow in key congested areas.
  *  5 percent toward Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements that safely connect communities and neighborhoods with schools, transit and employment centers countywide.
  *  10 percent toward Regional Transit Connections to better connect residents traveling from San Mateo County to neighboring counties with new and enhanced transit options.
  *  50 percent toward County Public Transportation System Investments to maintain and enhance bus, paratransit, rail and other countywide mobility services.
Investments in these five categories will be guided by 11 Core Principles that were developed in consultation with a group of more than 100 local transportation experts, advocates and community stakeholders. The Core Principles include:
  *  Relieve traffic congestion countywide
  *  Invest in a financially sustainable public transportation system that increases ridership, provides quality transit options for everyone, and embraces innovation to create more transportation choices and improves travel experience
  *  Prioritize environmentally-sustainable transportation solutions
  *  Promote economic vitality and economic development
  *  Maximize opportunities to leverage investment and services from public and private partners
  *  Enhance safety and public health
  *  Invest in repair and maintenance of existing and future infrastructure
  *  Facilitate the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, travel times and greenhouse gas emissions
  *  Incorporate the inclusion and implementation of policies that encourage safe accommodation of all people using the roads, regardless of mode of travel
  *  Incentivize transit, bicycle, pedestrian, carpooling and other shared-ride options over driving alone
  *  Maximize traffic reduction potential associated with the creation of new housing opportunities in high-quality transit corridors
To ensure that the Plan is implemented in a way that reflects these Core Principles, the Plan also includes a new citizen oversight protocol. The protocol requires the appointment of a 15-member independent citizen oversight committee that would meet regularly to monitor decision-making, ensure accountability, and provide assurance that the plan is implemented in a way that stresses public transparency.
The tax is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2019.
###
About the San Mateo County Transit District: The San Mateo County Transit District operates 70 SamTrans routes throughout San Mateo County.  Funded in part by a half-cent sales tax, the San Mateo County Transit District also provides administrative support for Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The San Mateo County Transit District has provided bus service to San Mateo County customers since 1976.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers

Recount Measure W Requirements.

Mr. Stogner,

To trigger a recount, a written request must be filed with the Elections Division within the five calendar days following the completion of the canvass. The request must specify on behalf of which position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed. The request may, but need not, specify the order in which the precincts shall be recounted.

The recount would be public, conducted by a recount board consisting of four county voters appointed by the Chief Elections Officer. All ballots and any other relevant materials may be examined upon request, and the requestor may challenge any ballot for defects (ambiguity, incompleteness, etc.), with a final determination to be made by the Chief Elections Officer.

The requestor must, before the recount starts and then before each day it continues, deposit with the Elections Division a sum determined by the Chief Elections Officer as necessary to cover the daily expenses of the recount. If upon completion of the recount the requestor’s position on the measure wins out contra the official canvass, the requestor receives a complete refund; otherwise they only receive back whatever was not consumed by actual expenses.

I estimate that daily cost would be approximately $1,160 for one manual recount board. Additional boards can be requested. A computer recount cost is $300 per hour. Depending on the scope of the recount and other requests, there may be additional costs above and beyond the personnel costs listed above. Any additional costs will be mutually agreed to by the requesting party and the county before the recount is commenced.

The requestor can bring the recount to an end at any time. The results of a recount are declared null and void unless every vote in which the contest appeared is recounted.

I hope this information helps. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.

MARK CHURCH

Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder

& Chief Elections Officer

555 County Center

Redwood City, CA 94063

650.363.4988

650.363.1903 fax

http://www.smcacre.org

Everyone should support the recount no matter which way you voted, The Yes on W should support it after spending $1.5M and the No on W who raised $5,700.  Level Playing Field

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Locol Control, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Robert Fourcrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County News, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Will Holsinger

SMCSO Deputy Heinz Puschendorf is filing for recount of Measure W.

 

San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf will be filing for a RECOUNT of all the ballots for Measure W in the November 6, 2018 election.

San Carlos Councilman Mark Olbert was the first Elected official to call for a complete Audit of the Elections Office.

Mark Simon the self proclaimed “genesis” of Measure W and a personal friend of Kevin Mullin and now a contributor for the Climate RWC stated clearly 271,704 was the number of ballots received by the absolute deadline.

Tonight the number has grown to 286,247.

Did Measure W pass using the 271,704 ballots.

It looks like Heinz Puschendorf is going to find out, a recount was going to happen no matter who won, I think this will be a much more transparent process for the average taxpayer who might have just got obligated with the Supervisors and SamTrans using $650,000 of taxpayer money against the taxpayers to pass Measure W.

Next step recount

By Michael G. Stogner

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Brent Turner, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, Senator Jerry Hill, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Mark Simon promoting patience.

I prefer simple math. 286,247 vs. 271,704

Did Measure W win in the 271,704 Ballots? Mr. Simon does not acknowledge he was the genesis  of Measure W. A sales tax producing $85M per year income for 30 years neg. impacting the poorest families.

He forgot this article

marksimon-e1517893488710

Mark says, “First, a lot of people voted in this election. As of 10 p.m. last Friday, the absolute deadline, a total of 271,704 ballots had been received by the county Elections office.

Political Climate with Mark Simon: Why it takes so long to count election ballots

in Featured/Headline/PoliticalClimate by

We’ve become people who stand in front of a microwave oven, muttering, “Hurry up.”

Not an ideal mindset for an electoral process that requires patience.

Patience. What a concept. It comes in handy when you’re waiting in traffic or standing in line at Disneyland or, say, counting ballots.

Such as counting ballots in San Mateo County’s November 6 election, which is taking much longer than some people seem to think it should.

In a world of instant gratification, elections often are neither instant nor gratifying, although often not for the same reasons.

And for the sake of the permanent record, I want to state unequivocally that they should take their time and make sure to count all the ballots, even if it means waiting for the final outcome.

Yes, we’re used to election results on election night, but it’s not like that. Not this time. Not anymore.

COUNTING THE REASONS: There are a number of reasons why the count for this election is taking a while, most of them valid, some of them worthy of further question.

First, a lot of people voted in this election. As of 10 p.m. last Friday, the absolute deadline, a total of 271,704 ballots had been received by the county Elections office.

That’s a voter turnout of nearly 68 percent, higher than the 65 percent projection from Elections officials. That’s more than 20 points higher than the turnout in 2014, the last gubernatorial election. That’s higher than the 65.3 percent turnout in 2010, when 226,000 voters cast ballots.

That’s also more than 20 points higher than the statewide turnout. When all the votes are counted, San Mateo County will be among the highest-turnout counties in the state, and among the top five highest in urban counties.

As of yesterday’s 4:30 p.m. update, Elections staff already had counted 144,000, nearly as many as the total number of votes cast in 2014 – and they still have another 127,000 ballots to count.

In other words, there was a huge turnout. The more ballots, the longer it takes to count them.

We are used to knowing the results right away. And why not? The run-up to the election took months of ads and mail pieces and all kinds of conversations. Why should we have to wait to know what happened?

And the answer is that this isn’t sports – we don’t always know the outcome the instant the clock runs out. To quote Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

And there’s another reason – it’s not just a huge turnout, but many of the local races are close.

Back in the days of all-machine voting, under the most normal of circumstances, some of these races were so close that we didn’t know the outcome until the end of November.

And these are hardly the most normal of circumstances.

AND BY THE WAY, WE DON’T DO THAT ANYMORE: The county has been shifting steadily away from voting by machine to voting by mail, or what used to be called absentee voting.

Then, we switched to this election’s all-mail balloting experiment.

Far from a great leap forward technologically, in reality, we went to a technology that more closely resembles voting in the 19th century, when voters made a mark on a paper ballot and stuffed it in a box.

In other words, we went from voting by machine to voting by hand.

When we voted at our local fire station, we slid our ballot into the machine and it was counted – right there, on the spot. We signed a book and no one checked the signature to make sure we were us. At the end of the evening, someone hit a button and the totals were instantly available.

Now, we vote by hand in our homes, sign and seal the envelope and deliver it, by mail or in person, to the Elections officials and we can mail it on Election Day.

Then, the mail has to be delivered, and someone has to open the envelope, cross-check the signature, and then manually slip the ballot into a machine that counts it.

It’s not quite that laborious – a lot of it is done by machines and scanners. But someone has to do the work we all used to do ourselves when we went to our precinct voting place.

It takes time to do it right.

THE BIG TRADE-OFF: The trade-off is more and better voting.

The evidence is plain, a huge number of voters turned out this year in the June and November elections. By any measure, that’s more voting and the assumption in elections is that more is better. Period.

Better voting comes in the form of a better-informed electorate.

Even with the shortened window of time during which the ballots were available in this election, voters had time to go over the ballot, research the often-confusing measures, find out a little more about the candidates and make deliberate, unhurried decisions.

If the cost is that it takes longer to tally all the ballots, it’s a trade-off worth making.

WE CAN DO BETTER: Still, there are some lingering questions about whether the San Mateo County Elections Department was prepared for the onslaught of ballots.

Interestingly, on the Peninsula TV election night show, Chief Elections Deputy Jim Irizarry brought some slides for his interview and one of them shows staffing levels in the Elections offices of the nine Bay Area counties.

San Mateo County is eighth, ahead only of Solano County.

There has been a lot of turnover in the Elections Department. Let’s be generous and assume it has been due to retirements.

I know from talking to people who have worked in the department that it takes two or three election cycles before a newcomer really has a handle on how it all works.

I don’t know if Elections Chief Mark Church failed to make a pitch to the Board of Supervisors, which includes his predecessor, Warren Slocum, for more funding for the Elections Department.

I don’t know if the Board failed to fund the department sufficiently, either at Church’s request or on its own initiative.

And I don’t care.

Moving forward, the department can do better and it needs to have adequate funds to hire the right number of people and to bring on board people with a level of experience that our elections system demands.

Contact Mark Simon at mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

Photo courtesy of San Mateo County Elections Division

*The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Climate Online.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Caltrain, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers

Mark Church “Severe Understaffing”

 

Mark-Church

“My administration has brought positive change to San Mateo County Elections. We are recognized as a leader in the state and the nation. We pioneered the first countywide consolidated All-Mailed Ballot Election, we’re leading the way in the implementation of the California Voter’s Choice Act and we were first in the state to implement an Accessible Vote by Mail System for visually impaired voters. All of this has been accomplished with an outdated voting system and severe understaffing

That is why the Voters passed Measure A in 2012. Did he ask the SMC Supervisors for additional funding and was denied?

Questions for Mark Church, How many ballots were printed? What are Undervotes? What was the percentage of Undervotes for each date update?

Here is his complete letter.

Political rhetoric undermines integrity of elections

Nov 19, 2018 Updated Nov 20, 201

Editor,

At a time when there is a lot of political rhetoric about elections, words matter. It is particularly troublesome when an elected official makes unfounded accusations and attacks the integrity of the elections process. Responsible elected officials instill confidence in the electoral process, but Mark Olbert’s letter to the editor (“Third-party audit needed of elections office”) published in the Nov. 7 edition of the Daily Journal, did just the opposite.

As policy makers, we must be very careful with the words we choose, and that responsibility rests with every individual from the President on down to local elected officials.

My administration has brought positive change to San Mateo County Elections. We are recognized as a leader in the state and the nation. We pioneered the first countywide consolidated All-Mailed Ballot Election, we’re leading the way in the implementation of the California Voter’s Choice Act and we were first in the state to implement an Accessible Vote by Mail System for visually impaired voters. All of this has been accomplished with an outdated voting system and severe understaffing.

Positive change isn’t always easy, and it’s never problem-free. Issues occur in every election, in every county and in every state. What matters is how these issues are managed so there is minimal or no impact to the voting process.

The issue referenced in Olbert’s letter was quickly addressed and did not affect anyone’s ability to cast their ballot.

My office prides itself in conducting open, transparent and accurate elections. We regularly provide tours to election observers.

Olbert exhibits a profound lack of understanding of the complexity of elections. Had he taken the time to contact me, I would have been happy to educate him.

Mark Church

Chief Elections Officer

San Mateo County

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, San Mateo County Grand Jury, Senator Jerry Hill, Shelly Kessler, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, TBWB, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Elected Official Mark Church just added 3,078 ballots. 19 days after the election.

Mark-Church

November 6, 2018 Election Results Statewide General Election

Total Paper Ballots received as of the deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Friday, November 9, 2018: 260,002​

This number is a raw count estimate (not tallied) that is determined by our electronic sorter. It is subject to change and updated daily as ballots received by the deadline continue to be processed by the electronic sorter.

The above number does not include Conditional Voter Registration Provisional Ballots and Regular Provisional Ballots which are processed after all regular ballots are processed and tallied.

Total Electronic Ballots cast and tallied on eSlate Voting Machines: 26,210 

 

Vote Center Ballots Cast 29,286 7.3%

Stogner asked Mark Church to resign 2010 to save taxpayers $1.1M

SMC Elections Results

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Supervisors, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Miller, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yes on Measure A 2012

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s findings, in Ramsey Saad Redwood City police use of force death, questioned.

Wait for it….. wait for it!  There it is, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s pass for the Redwood City police officers responsible for the August 2018 death of 55 year old Ramsey Saad, the 2nd of three such deaths, under similar circumstances, at the hands of San Mateo County officers, this year.

Wagstaffe

Slight of hand

In an apparent slight of hand, Wagstaffe released his decision not to charge the officers involved, by way of a proxy, Redwood City Police Chief Dan Mulholland -with his (Wagstaffe) providing a six-page letter stating no charges would be filled, and Mulholland, in-turn, conveniently passing it on to the press.

ShowImage

Redwood City Police Chief Mulholland

Chief Mulholland

This letter was given to Mulholland, on the eve of the November 2018 election, immediately before the weekend. Undoubtedly cognizant of press cycles, Wagstaffe had timed the disclosure, to limit media exposure and public attention.

Wagstaffe’s findings can not be relied upon

Wagstaffe’s decision was never in doubt, it was foregone, and only a matter of timing its announcement. The disclosure was artful and designed to provide the appearance of a thoughtful measured process. Bravo, Steve!

Results predictable

The results of Wagstaffe’s review were predictable, could be foreseen, and will most certainly be repeated. From district attorney to the district’s chief enabler, covering for institutional, organizational, and executive misconduct / corruption. Defending the indefensible, the district attorney’s office is clearly open for business, for the politically connected.

No checks & balances

Steve projects confidence, obviously believing he can sell snake oil to anyone or, another analogy, sell ice to eskimos. And he has a right to this belief, to a certain degree, for he has no credible adversaries, no persons to keep him in check. The County has a private defenders program, versus a public defenders office-the only one in the state (of 58 counties).

The significance is the private defenders program, historically, assigns cases through a panel to obedient attorney’s, ones who sell / market pleas to defendants, rarely file opposition motions or take cases to trial, and routinely, with regularity, funnel clients to state prison, county jail, and probation. Just look at the District Attorney’s conviction rate (win-loss record), it’s to die for -is the envy of other bay area counties.

This relationship between prosecution and defense has also dulled the senses and oversight of the County’s judiciary, with judges not being challenged (by the defense, the private defender’s program) to make significant calls on the law.

The relationship between Wagstaffe and county law enforcement executives is mutually beneficial and self serving, he covers for them and, in turn, they return the favor, with their political support & acquiescence.

When officers and public officials who matter commit crimes such as domestic violence, unnecessary and excessive use of force, sex crimes, etc., the results are often managed by county law enforcement executives, with the complicity and aid of Mr. Wagstaffe, resulting in distinctly different outcomes from the general public.

Use of force resulting in death foreseen

In the instant case, officers allegedly responded to a disturbance call involving Saad, a person with known mental health issues. Rather than collaborate with his supervisor and peers and come up with a strategy to address the situation and reduce the possibility of violence / injury, Officer Poveda drove directly to the scene, contacted Saad, and became involved in a physical confrontation with him. Poveda tased Saad, twice, and shocked him multiple times. Officer Poveda, according to Wagstaffe, was eventually able to handcuff Saad and thereupon joined by three other officers (the Calvary).

According to Wagstaffe, Saad [while handcuffed] continued to struggle with the officers who had come to Poveda’s aid. Eventually one officer placed a knee [on Saad’ s back] between his shoulder blades, while the two other officers present controlled his mid-body and legs, according to Wagstaffe.

Saad died and a medical examiner from the San Mateo County coroner’s office determined the cause of death to have been “a cardiac arrest occurring during physical exertion, physical restraint and tasering”, this according to Wagstaffe’s letter.

Wagstaffe anecdotally included Saad’s height and weight, in his letter, apparently to portray him as menacing. Yet he did not include the heights and weights of the four trained Redwood City Police officers who were involved.

In tasing a person multiple times, physically struggling with him, and finally placing a knee on his back, as he lay handcuffed facedown, restricting the movement of his chest, torso and legs, is it possible his breathing had been severely diminished, causing him to die from asphyxia? Just asking, Steve.

Did you present this information to the medical examiner who conducted Saad’s autopsy, Steve? Just asking. And how much did the officer placing a knee and on Saad’s back weigh? Again, just asking.

Aren’t officers specifically trained not to lay a large handcuffed prisoner on his/her stomach, Steve? Could such acts go towards an officer’s intent, Steve? Just asking.

DA Wagstaffe as an enabler

Under the circumstances, couldn’t Saad’s death have been foreseen, Steve?

It appears, I can confidently predict what your conclusion will be, in these situations, why can’t you foresee that your actions or rather lack of action is ensuring such events will continue to occur, in San Mateo County, with, I might add, some regularity, unabated?

I submit, by continuing to give officers a pass, in such instances, DA Wagstaffe is an enabler, significantly contributing to both the cause and tragic outcome of such events.

Not an honest broker

District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe holds the public’s trust, he is supposed to be independent and an honest broker, one the public can count on to speak truth to power. Three officer use of force deaths, this year, alone, and counting, ALL involving persons of color, individuals with known mental health problems, multiple applications of a taser, and forceful positional restraint!

Come on, Steve, there’s a problem with the use of force by officers, in San Mateo County! They’re killing persons with regularity, Steve! It’s not a product liability problem, you can’t keep covering up for that which is so obvious.

Call for transparency & full disclosure

In order to establish the truth and garner public trust, I would ask DA Wagstaffe to provide a complete copy of his office’s investigative report into Saad’s death, the autopsy report, the death certificate, the computer aided dispatch (CAD) printout for the event, the involved recorded 9-1-1 call(s) involved, and the recorded Redwood City Police radio communications involved in the event.

It is believed the public’s interest, in this matter, far outweighs that of the decedent, the San Mateo County District Attorney, the Redwood City Police Department, and the San Mateo County Coroners Office. The fact that this is one of three such use of force deaths, in the county, this year, involving persons of color who suffered mental heath issues make such disclosures even more important, if the district attorney wishes to establish transparency and the public’s trust.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, #TimesUp, 911, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Access TV, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Errol Chang R.I.P., Gavin Newsom, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Brosnan, Mike Callagy, NAACP, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ramsey Saad R.I.P., RICO, Robert Fourcrault, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P.

San Mateo Daily Journal misleading readers again. Missed all three numbers Why?

5930cc0f6e151.image

San Mateo Daily Journal misleading the residents/voters again.

“Nearly 260,000 ballots have been received so far. Of the ballots received, 237,000 have been counted. About 23,000 ballots are left to count at the Elections Office

Ballots received is 286,210 not nearly 260,000

Ballots tallied/counted is 265,793 not 237,000

Ballots remaining to be tallied counted is 20,417 not about 23,000

Election update has movement

Measure W close to passing, Reddy extends her lead

  • Updated
About 23,000 ballots are left to count at the Elections Office, according to an update Wednesday afternoon that showed some changes from the last tally in some close races.

After moving into third place in the Redwood City Council race over Rick Hunter for three open seats, Diana Reddy has grown that lead to 99 votes.

Two closely watched tax measures — Measure W, a half-cent sales tax for SamTrans and transportation improvements, and Measure V, a $298 parcel tax for the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District — moved more in a positive direction, with V solidifying its passage with 67.63 percent. It needs 66.67 percent to pass. Measure W, which also requires two-thirds approval, had its support jump to 66.51 percent of the vote.

Richa Awasthi further solidified her standing for the second open seat on the Foster City Council, and South San Francisco Councilman Pradeep Gupta is still appearing to fall short of re-election.

In Redwood City, Giselle Hale, who has 18.2 percent and a total of 11,700 votes, and Diane Howard, who has 17.1 percent and 10,993 total votes, have solidified their leads. Reddy has 16.05 percent and 10,316 votes compared to Hunter’s 15.89 percent and 10,217 votes, with 99 votes separating them. They have received 10,316 and 10,217 total votes respectively.

The Foster City Council contest continues to solidify. Sanjay Gehani led from the beginning and clinched a seat with 26.81 percent and 4,923 total votes, and Awasthi continues to have a more comfortable lead in the battle for the second open seat. She currently has 19.32 percent of the vote and 3,548 total votes and is followed by Patrick Sullivan, who has 18.29 percent of the vote and 3,358 total votes.

In the South San Francisco City Council race, results held from the last update with frontrunner incumbent Mark Addiego remaining the top vote getter, followed by challengers Mark Nagales and Flor Nicolas respectively. Incumbent Gupta still lingers in fourth place, with 7,488 votes, behind Nicolas by 148 votes and Nagales by 483 votes.

The bond measure designed to finance reconstruction of the Millbrae Recreation Center gained a few percentage points, as Measure II is now at 62.21 percent of the vote according to last count. It needs a supermajority to pass.

In Half Moon Bay, Robert Brownstone, who has 19.11 percent and 2,306 total votes, already clinched the third open seat over Virginia Turezyn, who has 16.4 percent and 1,669 total votes. Incumbents Deborah Penrose and Debbie Ruddock were the top two vote getters

Nearly 260,000 ballots have been received so far. Of the ballots received, 237,000 have been counted. More results are scheduled to come out Friday, Nov. 23, and on other days if needed.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Robert Fourcrault, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo Daily Journal, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Will Holsinger

San Mateo County’s Measure W Fails.

 

samtrans-1-1533683163-3178

Based on the information from San Mateo County Election Office there was a total of 286,210 ballots received, of that amount 265,793 ballots tallied a total 249,288 voted either yes or no for Measure W. That also means that 16,605 votes were not tallied or didn’t vote either way for Measure W. = 6.24% of the 265,793.

With a total of 20,417 remaining ballots to be tallied, minus the 6,24% No tally or vote for Measure W average leaves 19,149 votes to be tallied. The Yes on Measure W would have to get 68.7% of the remaining ballots “and they are statistically unlikely to meet the necessary threshold”.

With that information We are calling Measure W Failed.

Total Registered Voters 399,591, 286,210 Voted = 72% Turnout

 

San Mateo County Elections Office should display:

Registered Voters                                                             399,591         100.0%

Total Ballots Received (turn out)                                  286,210           72.0%

               Vote by Mail                                                       260,000           65.1%

               Vote Center                                                           26,210             6.7%

Total Ballots Counted                                                       265,793          53.3%

Ballots received, damaged or challenged                       #####           ##.#%

Ballots received but not counted                                     20,417             5.1%

Credit Thomas Weissmiller

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Brent Turner, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, John Ullom, Linda Koelling, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo Daily Journal, Seaton Medical Center, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Miller, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum