Category Archives: #MeToo

Deputy Sheriff’s Association President rejects Board of Supervisors oversight; vows to defend four of five Sheriff’s Office personnel involved in use of force Millbrae Death.

In an email to his members (BELOW), Deputy Sheriff’s Association President David “DJ” Wozniak was critical of Board of Supervisor oversight, the NAACP, the Black Lives Matter movement, and citizens concerned over the 2018 Millbrae use of force death of pedestrian Chinedu Okobi, at the hands of five sheriff’s deputies. In response to Deputy Wozniak’s communication, I would ask him the following:

In your email to your organization’s body, the Deputy Sheriff’s Association (DSA), you say I had hoped they [the Board of Supervisors] would simply ignore these anti police activists, they have not. How interesting you would characterize concerned citizens as “anti police activists”.

When an unarmed pedestrian is confronted by and dies at the hands of your members, sheriff’s deputies, is it anti police activism, to question whether or not what had occurred was appropriate, not an instance of the unnecessary and excessive use of force, and ask for the release of videos depicting what actually occurred? Do you and your organization believe such a call for transparency and oversight is inappropriate? It would seem so.

BOS Meeting 12/4/2018 Public Comment at 8:50 mark

And when you incredulously single out San Mateo County Supervisors Groom and Pine as having given these “activists” an audience, are you frustrated that they would dare to exercise any sort of oversight, in an incident involving the the death of a person at your member’s hands? Again, it would appear so.

In singling out these supervisors to your body, are you trying to communicate your ire and influence their conduct? In short, are you trying to sanction them? If so, I believe you have lost sight of the relationship the sheriff’s office, your membership, and the Board of Supervisors enjoy.

The Board of Supervisors have an oversight function with all County departments, their respective efficiency, missions, conduct, behavior, etc.. Though the Sheriff is the head of your department, its funding, resources, standards of conduct, and staffing levels are all subject to the control and oversight of the board.

And when you say “the decision to deploy Tasers is not made by the Board of Supervisors, it is the decision of the Sheriff” coupled with your assertion that you have had numerous conversations with Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, on the issue, are you saying he, Bolanos, is representing anything different to you?

And while we are on the subject of, what appears to be, your unfettered access to Sheriff Bolanos and conversations with him about this incident, death of pedestrian Okobi, I have to say his public presence, on this issue, is nonexistent and he appears to be ducking public scrutiny. I can’t help but remember how he ducked questions about his 2007 detention, at a residence in a seedy part of Las Vegas, by the FBI and Police, in a human trafficking investigation -one in which he had been detained, along with other patrons, at an illegal whorehouse, featuring Asian indentured sex slaves, to include a minor and a substantial cache of ecstasy drugs & cash.

True, such a strategy, ducking questions from the public and press (public scrutiny), has served him well, in the past, but he’s Sheriff now, holds the public’s trust, and more is expected of him. Or is he using you, Deputy Wozniak, as a proxy, to communicate his position, on the matter, to both the Board of Supervisors and public? I’m just asking.

I remember how then Undersheriff Bolanos and Sheriff Greg Munks had feverishly sought the support of both the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and Organization of Sheriff’s Sergeants, to publicly provide the duo with a vote of confidence, following their Las Vegas detention by the FBI. I also remember how Sheriff Munks had, concurrently, gone on an apology tour within the sheriff’s office, a mea culpa, saying words to the affect that he was sorry for his conduct and dishonor / humiliation it had subjected the organization to. Poignantly absent, on this endeavor, was Carlos Bolanos. Was this machismo, on his part, or an aversion to accountability? Just asking. And now his silence, in the Okobi incident, is both deafening and, seemingly, true to form.

Why, Deputy Wozniak, are you fearful of citizens questioning the circumstances which led to the death of a pedestrian, at the hands of your organization’s members?

Why do you feel it necessary to demonize these persons as anti police activists, painting them as part of the NAACP & Black Lives Matter movement en masse?

Why do you further characterize these citizens as the social media army of the Black Lives Matter organization and their knowing nothing about use of force issues?

Do you not see why reasonable well intentioned persons might question why an unarmed pedestrian who, when confronted by officers, ends up dead this following officers’ use of force?

Do you believe the sheriff’s office and your organization’s members are not accountable to the community which it serves and or the County Board of Supervisors?

Since you have characterized the deputies involved, in Okobi’s death, as doing nothing wrong, have pledged to defend them, and said “the DSA stands behind our members and the actions they took that day in Millbrae”, I assume you have reviewed the results of the investigation conducted by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s Office, in coming to this position and commitment? If this is true, could you please share with us those materials, as, thus far, Steve has told us his investigation has not yet concluded. If you are relying on other materials and or what  persons involved [deputies, Supervisors, Bolanos, Wagstaffe, etc.] have told you, please share, we would welcome such insight.

And I have to ask you, Deputy Wozniak, would you concede citizens have a right to question an investigation conducted by either the Sheriff’s or District Attorney’s Office? More importantly, given a past history of demonstrated bias, on District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe’s part, towards Sheriff Munks and Sheriff Bolanos, do you believe he should recuse himself and his office from conducting an investigation into Okobi’s death?

To be completely transparent, shouldn’t a grand jury be convened, witnesses called, evidence presented, and a result sought -bill or no bill of indictment? Or would that be too risky, as there is no defense information presented or cross examination conducted in such a venue, and, therefore, the results entirely predicated upon what narrative the District Attorney wants to present, guilty or not guilty?

Would you acknowledge, Deputy Wozniak, that politics influence decisions made by the both the district attorney’s office and sheriff’s office, respectively? Examples would be, say, the district attorney’s decision not to file charges against Eddie DeBartolo Jr. for a rape he had allegedly committed, in Menlo Park -the case had begun at a bar, the British Banker’s Club, in Menlo Park, and ended at DeBartolo Jr.‘s Menlo Park residence.

What about other allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct involving San Mateo County employees? Wouldn’t you concede, Deputy Wozniak, politics had been a consideration, in the outcome of some of these cases? I’m just asking.

 

thumbnail-6 

DJ’s email and its content to the DSA membership:

As you all know, the District Attorney has not yet announced if he will or will not prosecute 4 of our members for the death in custody in Millbrae last October. While I’m disappointed his decision has taken so long, we are confident our members did nothing wrong  and are fully prepared to defend our members if any charges are filed. The DSA stands behind our members and the actions they took that day in Millbrae. I’m confident that if the DA’s office wanted to move forward with any charges, we would prevail in court.

While the DA’s office weighs its options, the NAACP and the National Black Lives Matter movement have taken a particular interest in the Sheriff’s Office. They have activated their base via social media and have inundated the Board of Supervisors with thousands of calls and emails asking them to remove Tasers from San Mateo County Law Enforcement.

While I had hoped they would simply ignore these anti police activists, they have not.  Unfortunately,  SupervisorPine and Groom have given these people an audienceand formed a “taser committee” where they’ll will be looking into Tasers, policies surrounding them and researching deaths related to Tasers.

This is baffling because the decision to deploy Tasers is not made by the Board of Supervisors, it is the decision of the Sheriff.

The committee plans on holding a public meeting to “discuss Tasers”. The meeting is tenatively scheduled for February 11th at 1800 hours.

Once the meeting date/ time is confirmed, I will be asking all DSA members try to attend the meeting.   I’m not asking you to speak or participate in the conversation as  I find it unlikely that any of activists attending are open to listening to anything we have to say.  We simply don’t want the entire audience to be full of anti police activists and having normal rational people in the audience will be helpful.

Here is what I have one in response to these events:

 I have had numerous conversations with Sheriff Bolanos on this issue and made it crystal clear that the DSA does not support removing Tasers from our members.   The Sheriff has has told me that he supports that decision and believes in Tasers have their place in the use of force policies of the Sheriff’s Office.

I have met with the board members individually.  I have explained how valuable Tasers are to public safety. I have explained how high in the use of force continuum Tasers are and how restrictive our policy and procedures are regarding their use.  I explained to them that the calls/emails they are receiving are not from people in San Mateo County.The people calling are part of the social media army of the Black Lives Matter organization and know nothing nothing about use of force issuesand know nothing about Tasers and their use in law enforcement and most importantly, have no idea about the events in Millbrae resulting in the death in custody.

Sheriff Bolanos has authorized me to create a “use of force” day for the County Manager, County Council and Board of Supervisors.  Working with the training unit, we will give the BOS training on Tasers and run them through various scenarios, with and without Tasers so they can see their value in public safety.

I ask that any of you who happen to have a conversation with Sheriff Bolanos, convey your appreciation for his stance on this issue and supporting the DSA.

I will obviously keep you posted on any developments with this “Taser Committee”.

My final question D.J. Wozniak, Who is conducting the Sheriff’s Office Investigation?

Here is D. J. Wozniak (Plaid shirt looking down) in the audience with a very small group of his supporters. two guys behind him staring at camera.

thumbnail-7

By Michael G. Stogner

Reuters Article on Taser Deaths

 

1 Comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, John Beiers, Menlo Park Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Ordinance 04430, Positional Asphyxia, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMCSO Sgt. Weidner, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter

SMCSO DSA President D.J. Wozniak can’t say Chinedu V. Okobi’s name.

17862588_1618867384820560_4466109734454003179_n

Chinedu Valentine Okobi

EXCESSIVE & UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE
Chinedu V. Okobi was murdered October 3, 2018 on El Camino Real in Millbrae by 5 San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies. One of them Sgt. David Weidner not represented DSA.
thumbnail-6
He is upset that 40 residents came and spoke at the December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor meeting and used the M word Murder.
He is upset that the Supervisors formed a Committee on Tasers to meet Feb. 11, 2019 6-8PM in the Supervisors meeting room 1st floor of the 400 County Center Building. He is not the only one upset at the Supervisors, this Committee and subject matter is not at all important to the murder of Chinedu.
EXCESSIVE & UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE is the only topic that is important. That is what Steve Wagstaffe, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Warren Slocum, David Canepa are all distracting the public with the Committee dog and pony show. If this “Committee on Tasers” Charade sounds familiar it should 2008 the BOS did a similar performance.

Ethics committee in works

Elected county officials suspected of wrongdoing or unbecoming conduct can be investigated by a five-member ethics committee with the authority to recommend their removal, according to an ordinance unanimously endorsed yesterday by the Board of Supervisors.

The board created the independent citizens review panel on Tuesday after revisiting an earlier proposal by supervisors Jerry Hill and Adrienne Tissier. At its July 22 meeting, the board cautiously backed the idea but asked for some fine-tuning of language to avoid the panel embarking on what Supervisor Mark Church characterized as a “witch hunt” against officials.

The approved proposal defines “serious official misconduct” based on an existing San Bernadino ordinance and allows the board to determine an allegation is unfounded before calling together the review panel. The passed ordinance also suspends the panel’s investigation when necessary as not to conflict with any criminal proceedings.

Although having such a review panel will help the county deal with questionable situations if needed, the goal is to never have them arise, Hill said.

The ordinance, which still requires a second reading to become official, also can’t retroactively address the matter which sparked its formation — the April 2007 detention of Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos in an undercover brothel sting in Las Vegas.

The pair were in town for a law enforcement race and told police they mistakenly went to the raided home because they thought it was a legitimate massage parlor.

Neither was charged with a crime and the supervisors said they had no discipline authority. Approximately a year later, Hill revisited the issue of official oversight for elected county officials.

Hill and Tissier suggested an independent ethics committee as an alternative to less viable oversight ideas such as letting the Board of Supervisors remove fellow elected officials. Not even a county charter amendment gives the board authority to remove an elected official and the state constitution doesn’t allow the board to discipline an official to any less degree.

While the committee itself can’t take action, its independent nature removes the politics from the process and can spark into action the grand jury, which does have the authority to recommend an official’s removal.

The citizen’s review panel of individuals will include either retired judges, former county or city administrators, former grand juror foreperson, or former county counsels, city attorneys or district attorneys. Selection would be random and Brown Act — California’s open meeting law — requirements enforced.

The San Bernadino County charter — the one most often referenced as a San Mateo County template — allows a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors to remove any other county officer for “flagrant or repeated neglect of duties,” “misappropriation of public property,” “violation of any law related to the performance of the official’s duties” or “willful falsification of a relevant official statement or document.”

While the ordinance has survived a legal challenge, it has never been used.

Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
Here is D.J.’s recent email to the Union members.
As you all know, the District Attorney has not yet announced if he will or will not prosecute 4 of our members for the death in custody in Millbrae last October. While I’m disappointed his decision has taken so long, we are confident our members did nothing wrong  and are fully prepared to defend our members if any charges are filed. The DSA stands behind our members and the actions they took that day in Millbrae. I’m confident that if the DA’s office wanted to move forward with any charges, we would prevail in court.
NOTE: I think every San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy knows the above statement by D.J. Wozniak sounds really good, but in reality look what D.J. has done for Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez.
While the DA’s office weighs its options, the NAACP and the National Black Lives Matter movement have taken a particular interest in the Sheriff’s Office. They have activated their base via social media and have inundated the Board of Supervisors with thousands of calls and emails asking them to remove Tasers from San Mateo County Law Enforcement.
While I had hoped they would simply ignore these anti police activists, they have not.   Unfortunately,  Supervisor Pine and Groom have given these people an audience and formed a “taser committee” where they’ll will be looking into Tasers, policies surrounding them and researching deaths related to Tasers.
This is baffling because the decision to deploy Tasers is not made by the Board of Supervisors, it is the decision of the Sheriff.
The committee plans on holding a public meeting to “discuss Tasers”. The meeting is tenatively scheduled for February 11th at 1800 hours.
Once the meeting date/ time is confirmed, I will be asking all DSA members try to attend the meeting.   I’m not asking you to speak or participate in the conversation as  I find it unlikely that any of activists attending are open to listening to anything we have to say.   We simply don’t want the entire audience to be full of anti police activists and having normal rational people in the audience will be helpful.
Here is what I have one in response to these events:
  • I have had numerous conversations with Sheriff Bolanos on this issue and made it crystal clear that the DSA does not support removing Tasers from our members.   The Sheriff has has told me that he supports that decision and believes in Tasers have their place in the use of force policies of the Sheriff’s Office.
  • I have met with the board members individually.  I have explained how valuable Tasers are to public safety. I have explained how high in the use of force continuum Tasers are and how restrictive our policy and procedures are regarding their use.    I explained to them that the calls/emails they are receiving are not from people in San Mateo County. The people calling are part of the social media army of the Black Lives Matter organization and know nothing nothing about use of force issues and know nothing about Tasers and their use in law enforcement and most importantly, have no idea about the events in Millbrae resulting in the death in custody.
  • Sheriff Bolanos has authorized me to create a “use of force” day for the County Manager, County Council and Board of Supervisors.  Working with the training unit, we will give the BOS training on Tasers and run them through various scenarios, with and without Tasers so they can see their value in public safety.
I ask that any of you who happen to have a conversation with Sheriff Bolanos, convey your appreciation for his stance on this issue and supporting the DSA.
I will obviously keep you posted on any developments with this “Taser Committee”.
By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, #TimesUp, 911, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, electioneering, Errol Chang R.I.P., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Mark Olbert, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Regina Islas, RICO, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sergeant David Weidner, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P.

Great News, Recalled Judge Aaron Persky is asking for donations.

He received almost $900,000 and he is asking for donations to pay for legal fees he caused. He should have resigned, when the recall was first announced to the public.

IMG_la-1544641815-e4v6og_2_1_H24MFJPG

LATIMES December 13, 2018

Recalled judge seeks donations
Aaron Perksy says he could be liable for $135,000 in legal fees after fighting ouster.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY Judge Aaron Persky was voted out of office amid outrage over his sentencing of a former Stanford student convicted of sexual assault. (Jeff Chiu Associated Press)
By Hannah Fry
The first California judge to be recalled in more than 80 years, who was ousted from office amid public outrage over a light jail sentence he handed down in a high-profile sexual assault case, is asking supporters for donations to pay off legal fees by the end of the year.
Former Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky faced widespread scrutiny that culminated in a successful recall campaign after he sentenced Brock Turner, a former Stanford University student, to six months in jail and three years’ probation for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman in 2015 behind a garbage bin on the Palo Alto campus.
Persky, who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, unsuccessfully fought the campaign and was booted from office by voters in June.
In a recent email with the subject line “A Final Ask,” Persky implores his supporters to donate money through his campaign committee, Retain Judge Persky, so that he can use the funds to pay $135,000 in court-ordered attorney fees incurred during his legal fight against the recall. The fees are due Dec. 31.
Persky wrote in the email that his campaign committees, which public records show raised more than $700,000, spent all of their resources fighting the recall effort.
“If my campaign committee is unable to raise the money to pay the amount ordered, I will be personally liable for any balance owed,” he wrote.
Persky waged a legal fight against the recall in 2017, arguing in Santa Clara County Superior Court that, because judges are state officers, California’s secretary of state should have overseen the petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot instead of the county registrar.
The court rejected that argument and, after the recall election, ordered him to pay more than $163,000 in fees to the attorney representing the recall campaign. The parties later reached a settlement to reduce the bill to $135,000.
Persky wrote that he “pursued the litigation so that Superior Court judges would benefit from the same procedural protections as other state officers who face recall elections.”
Attorney James McManis, whose law firm represented Persky for free during his court battle against the recall, said it’s understandable that the former judge is trying to raise money.
McManis was critical of Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor who is a family friend of the victim and was the public face of the recall campaign, for seeking attorney fees.
“It’s not enough she took his job away and took his pension away and left him out on the street,” McManis said. “She wanted attorneys’ fees too.”
Persky didn’t meet California Public Employees’ Retirement System requirements to receive a pension by the time he left the bench, so he was required to take a lump sum — roughly $892,000 — that he and his employer had put into his pension fund plus interest. It is not clear whether he rolled that money into another fund or cashed it out.
Dauber contends that Persky brought the legal expense on himself when he “made the bad decision to repeatedly file frivolous lawsuits and appeals with the goal of stalling and causing expense.”
“The court has concluded that he should be required to pay for that decision, and we are happy that our lawyer will be getting paid for his outstanding work in defending our constitutional rights, and those of the voters of Santa Clara County,” she said.
hannah.fry@latimes.com
Twitter: @Hannahnfry

Full disclosure I supported the recall of Hon. Judge Aaron Persky from the moment I heard about it. I feel and still do that he should have recused himself from the case at the very beginning. Judge Persky was the captain of the Stanford Lacrosse Team.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, California State Bar, Citizens Oversight Committee, Hon. Judge Aaron Persky, James McManis, Michael G. Stogner, Michele Dauber, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Silicon Valley, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate

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

FB’s Mark Zuckerberg refused to attend UK’s Parliament meeting. Lawmakers from 9 Countries. He should have gone.

181127070430-01-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-hearing-super-tease

San Mateo County News.co will publish every elected official and public leaders comments on Mark Zuckerberg’s NO SHOW. Here are just a fews words said in that meeting, “Misleading, False or a Lie.” “Corporate Fraud” “RICO” “Break up FaceBook”

“The Problem is Facebook”

“The problem is Facebook,” said Canadian lawmaker Charlie Angus. “We’re talking about symptoms but the problem is the unprecedented economic control of every form of social discourse and communication.”

It’s been three days now and below are the public comments so far from The Board of Supervisors and all elected officials of San Mateo County.

 

 

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, RICO, San Mateo County Superior Court, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Silicon Valley, SMC, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers

Recount Measure W, Simple questions go unanswered. There is a Deadline, they know it.

mc_portrait_squareArtboard 1

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy

Recount of Measure W.  Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf to file.
Good Morning San Mateo County Leaders,
I’m requesting you to step in and supply the public with the following information. The reason I am asking you is simple Mark Church has failed to answer these questions.
How much will it cost for the recount of Measure W?
What is the deadline for filing? Where to file?
As the Supervisors know I have said many times they should use taxpayer money from the general fund to pay this expense, reason being they invested $350,000 of taxpayer money to be used against the taxpayers.
The Measure W recount is a perfect example of transparency and it will demonstrate how SMC’s current system works or doesn’t work. I think we all knew a recount was going to happen on Measure we just didn’t know which side was going to demand it, now we do.
I think we can all agree for Mr. Church to withhold this critical information from the public is a bad idea.
Thank You in advance
Michael G. Stogner
Private Victim’s Advocate
Co-owner San Mateo County News.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Bill Silverfarb, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Governor of California, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Thomas Weissmiller, Vicky Nguyen Journalist/Reporter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yes on Measure A 2012

SMC Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Unseal the Documents. It’s in the public’s best interest. Mark Zuckerberg caused this.

Mark Zuckerberg refused to show up, and refused to answer questions. Why are you protecting him? also the British Parliament has the documents.

30727422_1046328192172159_7715425602097905664_n

San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.

Screen Shot 2018-11-26 at 7.36.08 AM

Source: https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1066732715737837569?s=20

Screen Shot 2018-11-26 at 8.07.07 AM

Source: https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1066773746491498498?s=20

Guardian Article

CBS Article

Editors note: Sealed Documents in Jody Williams case for a single misdemeanor charge.

https://sanmateocountynews.com/2018/10/21/smc-dishonest-search-warrant-steve-wagstaffe-is-going-after-jody-loren-williams-why-now/

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #San Mateo County, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, #TimesUp, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DDA Albert Serrato, Don Horsley, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Jordan Boyd, Judges, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Superior Court, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers