Category Archives: San Mateo County Sheriff Office

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo – Kavanaugh Appointment.

Anna Eshoo
Eerily reminiscent of the Ford-Kavanaugh matter, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo had brought yet another allegation of sexual misconduct by an official forward, one in which republican sheriff Greg Munks and his underboss, undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, had been caught and detained by the FBI, in a human trafficking investigation -the two were found at an illegal Las Vegas (Clark County) brothel, one trafficking underaged indentured sex slaves and controlled substances -Ecstasy. They were there as customers.

At the time, Eshoo had called for the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to sanction Munks and Bolanos, but they had refused to address the matter. In fact, current San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe had gone so far as to excuse the duo’s behavior, consoling Munks, telling him it would soon be yesterday’s news, and saying he was “a man of integrity, such that it would not in any fashion affect his office’s ability to enforce the laws of the state of California”. On its face, such a comment could only be characterized as laughable, had the persons and conduct involved not been so serious. Not to mention DA Wagstaffe’s apparent dismissive attitude towards the abuse of women, by “Those Who Matter.”

MunksVegas4 copy

Munks went on to issue a press release, saying he had thought he had been going to a legitimate business, only to find out “It was not”, with Bolanos, to answer questions about the matter. A strategy which had worked, with the media/press and the board of supervisors not pursuing the matter further.

Congresswoman Eshoo is to be commended. I only hope her efforts, in the Kavanaugh matter, won’t be met with a similar fate -speaking truth to power is often an uphill battle.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Adrienne Tissier, Board of Supervisors, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Heinz Puschendorf, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Jordan Boyd, Karen Guidotti, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Please Withdraw Endorsement of Carlos Bolanos for Sheriff 2018, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Munks, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Few reports against police upheld, You can interchange Judges, District Attorneys,Prosecutors,CPS,Probation Officials & Those Who Matter.

 

This is a very good article, Thank You LATIMES,

My recommendation is to stop reporting privately and before you report a Corrupt San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy and the alleged crimes his has committed against his children, his ex wife, and the Court (photos to CPS and filed with the family law court), The purpose to harm the mother, First of all you would be Stupid to report this crime to San Mateo County Sheriff Office under the leadership of Carlos Bolanos. He has a history of protecting Corrupt Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Andrew Armando is a current example. So before you report to the A.G. or the Feds you must cover your bases and give the District Attorney’s Office a chance to prove that they are opposed to a Sheriff Deputy filing false documents to CPS and the Court. You would also hope they would acknowledge the obvious conflict of Interest the current girlfriend of the Deputy works for the DA’s Office. After you go twice to report the criminal acts of (your ex) the SMC Sheriff Deputy, The DA finally takes the complaint they hate that you force them to do what they have sworn an Oath to do. Don’t be surprised when they recommend that YOU take a polygraph test and you agree to it and pass with flying colors. What did that have to do with the Deputy committing Felonies you might ask? Nothing, but if the DA was more interested in attacking the single mother/victim then prosecuting the Sheriff Deputy. Now after passing that test you would hope the DA invited the SMC Sheriff Deputy to take the same polygraph test, they choose not to and closed the criminal investigation. This lack of action only emboldens the dishonest Sheriff Deputy to once again report child abuse to the Redwood City Police Department where he has several personal friends.

San Mateo County Residents can thank the entire District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office for this.

9/23/2018 LATIMES

Few reports against police upheld

Across California, complaints of officer misconduct are often rejected and inquiries kept from public view.

By James Queally

Angry that she had been falsely accused of a drug crime, Tatiana Lopez filed a complaint against a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who had arrested her on suspicion of possessing methamphetamine.

But when Lopez met with a sheriff’s lieutenant to discuss her accusation, he urged her to drop her complaint, she said.

After a preliminary investigation, the Sheriff’s Department ruled the deputy had done nothing wrong, without giving her any explanation.

It would take years of legal battles before a judge exonerated Lopez and a new internal investigation led the department to fire the deputy for lying about her arrest.

Lopez is one of nearly 200,000 members of the public who filed a complaint against California law enforcement officers in the last decade. Her initial complaint ended the way most did — with police rejecting it without saying why.

A Times analysis of complaint data reported to the California Department of Justice shows law enforcement agencies across the state upheld 8.4% of complaints filed by members of the public from 2008 to 2017.

In a state with some of the strictest police privacy laws in the country, those who make complaints against officers are entitled to learn little more than whether their allegations were found to be true or not. They are given no other explanation about how a final decision was reached, what was done to investigate their allegation or whether an officer was disciplined.

A bill that cleared the state Legislature last month would begin to address the issue by opening up records from internal investigations into shootings by police officers and other major force incidents, as well as cases where officers were found to have committed sexual assault or lied on duty. Gov. Jerry Brown has not said whether he will sign the measure, Senate Bill 1421.

But even if he does, records from the vast majority of internal affairs investigations would remain secret.

The Times’ analysis of complaint data found several of California’s largest police agencies sustain complaints at a lower rate than the state average, including the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles and Oakland police departments.

Police officials argue that a large number of the complaints they receive are frivolous, filed by people they have arrested or others who have an ax to grind. Some said the proliferation of body-worn cameras among California police agencies has helped disprove a larger number of allegations about interactions between police and the public.

In Los Angeles, police said the low rate of upheld complaints was due, in part, to the department’s commitment to accepting a wide array of allegations. The LAPD received 25,006 complaints from the public in the last decade, according to state records. Officials concluded there was evidence proving 1,360, about 5.4%.

“We take every single complaint on the planet,” said Josh Rubenstein, the LAPD’s chief spokesman. “When you open yourself up to that wide a spectrum, you are going to get a high number of complaints that are not legitimate.”

Cmdr. Michael Hyams, who heads the LAPD’s Internal Affairs division, said that by examining even the flimsiest of allegations, the department has proved it will heavily scrutinize its own officers. He noted there has been a dramatic drop in citizen complaints against LAPD officers. State records show the number fell by roughly 67% from 2008 to 2017.

At the Sheriff’s Department, internal investigators upheld only 69 of 15,661 complaints made by members of the public in the last decade, less than 1%, according to figures the agency reported to the state.

Nicole Nishida, a department spokeswoman, said the agency had under-reported the number of sustained complaints to the state. By the department’s own accounting, roughly 8% of all public complaints were upheld from 2004 to 2016, she said.

Peter Bibring, director of police practices for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, said that a low rate of sustained complaints does not necessarily mean a department is doing a poor job of policing itself, but the lack of information disclosed about those investigations is a significant problem.

“If their complaint is rejected, they are not told why,” he said. “That lack of transparency prevents the public from having any faith that the process is working.”

California law requires police departments to report the number of citizen complaints and the outcome to the state’s Department of Justice, but no agency audits the data to ensure the figures are accurate. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency is not required by law to conduct audits and hasn’t been given funding to do so. The state has gathered such data since 1981 and expanded the database to include information about racial profiling complaints in 2016.

Wayne Fisher, a former deputy attorney general in New Jersey who helped set the state’s guidelines for monitoring internal affairs complaints, said it was pointless to collect the data without checking to see whether some agencies are rejecting an abnormally large number of complaints and deserve more scrutiny.

“It acts as a pointer system to certain other areas that are screaming for analysis,” said Fisher, who now leads the Rutgers University Policing Institute.

Francine Tournour, a civilian watchdog for the Sacramento Police Department, agreed. Police departments need to be more open about their investigations into complaints about officers if they want the public to trust the results, she said.

“Part of this is customer service. Part of this is the relationship building,” she said. “If you have a process where people make complaints … and there’s no feeling that the complaint was taken seriously, you may see people stop bringing things to the department.”

In Sacramento, a city with a population of nearly 500,000, police reported only 18 complaints to the Department of Justice last year. Det. Eddie Macaulay, a department spokesman, said the agency did not include an additional 301 informal “inquiries,” a label used when department officials believe it was clear that an accusation did not amount to a violation of policy or crime. Had the department included those inquiries in its reporting to the state, its rate of sustained complaints would have plummeted.

Tournour, who heads the Sacramento Office of Public Safety Accountability, warned that handling such complaints informally can distort the history of documented allegations against individual officers — and a department as a whole.

In 2016, Jasmine Abuslin accused more than a dozen Oakland police officers of having sex with her, sometimes in exchange for information about prostitution raids. Her accusations — including that the misconduct began when she was underage — sparked a scandal that made national headlines and led to the firing and prosecution of several officers.

During her first contact with an internal affairs investigator, Abuslin said the police official seemed uninterested in her allegations.

“I felt like she wasn’t taking me seriously,” she said.

She also accused internal affairs investigators of threatening her for coming forward and of allowing her to delete text messages that could have proven her allegations.

Members of the public have filed 16,345 complaints of misconduct against Oakland police officers in the last decade, according to the state data. Only 1,073 of those complaints, roughly 6.5%, were sustained.

Oakland police did not respond to requests for comment.

In recent years, police agencies in California have had to report more details about citizen complaints and their outcomes, including how many they decided were false, involved conduct that did not amount to a policy violation or could not be proved or disproved. Last year, police agencies statewide concluded that 28% of complaints were false.

In Fresno, Chief Jerry Dyer said he has sought more thorough investigations and urged his internal affairs department to revisit investigations where it could not prove or disprove a misconduct allegation.

Fresno has one of the highest rates of sustained complaints among California’s largest cities. The department upheld 325 out of 1,332 citizen complaints in the last decade, roughly 24%, according to the state data. Last year, the agency reported it couldn’t prove or disprove less than 6% of complaints made by the public, compared with the statewide average of 25%.

The push for more conclusive results better serves the community, said Dyer, adding that he supports releasing more information about the way complaints are reviewed. The current process, which sees citizens simply receive a form letter announcing a complaint’s disposition, “raises a lot of concerns on the part of those voicing the complaint,” Dyer added, though he said he does not support making individual officer disciplinary records public.

For Lopez, the shortcomings of the internal investigation into her complaint about L.A. County sheriff’s deputies destroyed her trust in law enforcement.

The Downey woman was a college student with no criminal record in 2009 when three deputies trained their guns on her in a gas station parking lot. Deputy Francisco Enriquez alleged he found several bags of methamphetamine in his cruiser after she rode in its back seat. He said they fell out of her pocket.

Lopez’s attorney, Thomas Beck, later obtained sheriff’s radio transmissions proving Lopez was never in Enriquez’s car.

Lopez said the ordeal had a lasting effect.

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Redwood City Police Department, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

James “Jim” McGee Arrested for Domestic Violence, That’s all after a 17 hr. Standoff.

Update: Sept. 24, 2018 There is No Domestic Violence Charge and only one count of 148(a)(1) PC. There is still No Case number on the Court Calendar. The residents of San Mateo County should be demanding an Audit of the District Attorney’s Office and include the County Domestic Violence Protocol, was it followed, Who is responsible for enforcing it. What about the Victim?

Update: Todays 9/12/2018 Court date has been continued for 2 weeks. Next Court date or cording to the DA’s Office is 9/27/2018. Still NO charges filed by the District Attorney’s Office, not even the Domestic Violence charge he was arrested for.

August 9, 2018 at 2:00AM the Redwood City Police Department responded to a 911 call reporting Domestic Violence with injuries. When police arrived they found a woman in the front of the home located on Windsor Way. She was taken to the Hospital. The police, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Swat Team, a Helicopter and who knows how many first responders spent the next 17 plus hours communicating with one of their own to get him to comply with the orders to come outside. The entire neighborhood was effected by this military response to a former RWCPD Swat Team Officer refusing to comply with orders to come out. Some neighbors were forced to stay in place and some left their homes for safety.

If you think over 17 hours for one of their own seems like a long time you are correct, but that is nothing, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe and Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti have refused to file any charges as of Sept 10, 2018. You talk about favorable treatment, think about having over 30 days to communicate with the victim to have her really think about her future and what’s best for her and the alleged abuser. Financial considerations of course. This is where the Fixer shines, behind the scenes he communicates the reality to the victim, she will never win in court in SMC. It won’t be the first time a victim has heard that statement before.

San Mateo County has a Domestic Violence Protocol it includes an Emergency Protective Order, a 30 day Court appearance to convert the EPO to a Restraining Order. I asked the DA’s Office the status of the EPO & RO here is the response.

Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
To:Michael Stogner
Sep 10 at 11:42 AM

Mr. Stogner:  No charges have been filed yet.  Yes, his court appearance is still set for the 12th.  I won’t be commenting on the facts of the case until a filing decision is made.  You may feel free to reach out to me daily to see if/when charges are filed.

Karen

From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 11:31 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>
Subject: RE: James A. McGee Charges Update

Hello Karen,

Is his court date still set for the 12th.

Was there an EPO issued? and was it converted to a R.O.?

What are the charges?

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

Note: Sept. 12. 2018 I went to the court house James McGee’s name was not on the docket at all. Usually all parties come to court on the official court date and than continue. That is not what happened in this case.

Chief Deputy Karen Guidotti should explain to the residents of San Mateo County this statement. “Yes, his court appearance is still set for the 12th.”   

The District Attorney’s Office and the Redwood City Police Department should be audited.

My reporting is facts based if anyone would like to comment please do.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

 




 

1 Comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, 911, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, John Maltbie, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Ramsey Saad R.I.P., Redwood City Police Department, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando is a Brady Officer at the very least, Criminal at most.

Lt. Andrew Armando is currently in charge of the Internal Affairs of the Sheriff’s Office. That is a bad thing. He is dishonest and has committed criminal acts in the Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Criminal case. In order for him to be convicted of a crime, San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Steve Wagstaffe, Karen Guidotti, John Warren would have to file charges and currently they are refusing to do so. Who else is aware of the criminal conduct allegations filed May 1, 2018 in the Lopez case. Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, many Sheriff Deputies, San Mateo County Counsel, Judges include Hon. Judge George Miriam, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum.

The public is counting on, hoping that all people in position of Authority will do their job, which is to protect the public not a small group of “Those Who Matter.”

Why are the people mentioned above protecting a “Dirty Cop”? They have all known since May 1, 2018 of the allegations. What actions have they taken besides delaying?

A recent DA Steve Wagstaffe quote: “I still believe that one of the key components of a good criminal justice system is faith that judges do the right thing,” 

The same can be said for the Sheriff Office and the District Attorney’s Office do the right thing.

The Sunny Day Murder case had 80 Search Warrants alone.

How many cases or Search Warrants has Lt. Andrew Armando been involved in since 2013? A Brady Officer can not testify for good reason.

Juan Lopez’s first Attorney Stuart Hanlon to reporter Katie Utehs 2/23/2015:

“This interview is going to make it harder to practice there, but it’s the truth and I’m willing to deal with it because I think this man is being falsely charged.”

Mr. Hanlon is right as of today 8 Felony charges have been dismissed. San Mateo County Government leadership could care less that the DA’s Office and Sheriff’s Office is dishonest. Look no further then Good and Concerned Citizen Therese Dyer who has been reporting corruption in those offices for many years and the Supervisors refuse to conduct an Audit.

Elected Official Jack Hickey is the only SMC politician to question the DA’s Office.

Here is the Lopez Motion with the criminal allegations.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carlos G. Bolanos, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Jordan Boyd, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Department, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Tony Serra, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

America must change the Wording of the law. “feared for his life and his partner’s safety.”

“Feared for his life and his partner’s safety.” That is the green light to murder.

LA Times article August 29, 2018

Former cop convicted of murdering Texas teen
Rare guilty verdict follows long series of high-profile acquittals of officers who killed black men and boys.
“I’M JUST so thankful,” said Odell Edwards, the victim’s father, pictured hugging Dallas County Dist. Atty. Faith Johnson after a jury found a since-fired police officer guilty of murder in the death of Jordan Edwards. (Rose Baca Pool Photo) JORDAN EDWARDS, 15, was in a car leaving a party when the officer shot him in the head. (Inform) FORMER Balch Springs Officer Roy Oliver, center, said he fired his rifle in fear for his and his partner’s safety, but video showed the youths’ car was moving away. (Rose Baca Pool Photo)
By Kurtis Lee
A former police officer in Texas has been found guilty of murder in the high-profile shooting death of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards — a rare victory for civil rights activists seeking justice for the dozens of African American men and boys who have been killed by police officers in recent years.
As Judge Brandon Birmingham read the verdict Tuesday against Roy Oliver, who worked in the Dallas suburb of Balch Springs, sobs came from the gallery of the packed courtroom. The last time an on-duty police officer in Dallas County was convicted of murder was in 1973. Oliver could be sentenced to life in prison.
“I’m just so thankful,” Jordan’s father, Odell Edwards, told reporters. “Thankful, thankful.”
Daryl Washington, an attorney representing the family, said the verdict meant more than justice for Jordan.
“It’s about Tamir Rice. It’s about Walter Scott. It’s about Alton Sterling,” he said, naming victims of police shootings in recent years. “It’s about every, every African American, unarmed African American, who has been killed and who has not gotten justice.”
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted a link to a news story about the conviction, saying that Jordan’s “life should never have been lost.”
On the night of April 29, 2017, Oliver fired an MC5 rifle into a Chevrolet Impala carrying Jordan and others, including two of his brothers, as it pulled away from a high school house party. Jordan, who was struck in the back of his head, was later pronounced dead at a hospital.
Police initially said the vehicle had backed up toward Oliver “in an aggressive manner,” but body-camera video showed the car was moving away from him and his partner. Days after the shooting, Oliver, who had served in the department for six years, was fired.
Jordan’s stepbrother, Vidal Allen, was driving the car the night of the shooting.
“I was very scared,” Allen testified. “I just wanted to get home and get everyone safe.”
Oliver, 38, has said he feared for his life and his partner’s safety.
“I had to make a decision. This car is about to hit my partner,” Oliver testified in the trial. “I had no other option.”
After a weeklong trial, it took the jury one day to reach a verdict.
Jordan’s death echoes other police shootings involving black boys and men. But no convictions were handed down in most of those cases.
In November 2014, Cleveland police got a 911 call about someone brandishing a pistol near a park — the weapon, the caller said, was “probably fake.” But in an incident captured on camera, a police cruiser pulled into the park and Officer Timothy Loehmann jumped out and opened fire. Within seconds, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who had a toy gun, was dead.
Even before Tamir’s death, the U.S. Department of Justice had been investigating the Cleveland Police Department. A month after his shooting, it released a report saying Cleveland police displayed a pattern of using unnecessary force.
A year later, a grand jury decided not to indict Loehmann in Tamir’s death, saying the since-fired officer had reason to fear for his life.
In September 2016, in Columbus, Ohio, police shot and killed Tyre King, 13, who was carrying a BB gun while running from police. A grand jury declined to file criminal charges against the officer who killed him.
And in May 2017, an Oklahoma jury acquitted an officer who shot and killed Terence Crutcher, 40, as he stood with his hands above his head on a rural highway.
Those cases and others illustrate the difficulty of convicting police officers. The law in most places gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Prosecutors usually have to show that an officer knowingly and intentionally killed without justification or provocation. A fear of harm has been successfully used as the justification for many shootings, even when the victim turned out to be unarmed.
The most recent case that ended in a conviction came last year when Michael Slager, a former officer in North Charleston, S.C., was first tried on murder charges in the April 2015 shooting of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man who fled after being stopped for driving with a broken taillight. But after those proceedings ended in a mistrial, Slager pleaded guilty to a civil rights violation and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The last Dallas County police officer convicted for murder while on duty was Darrell Cain, who shot and killed 12-year-old Santos Rodriguez after forcing him to endure a version of Russian roulette while handcuffed inside a patrol car.
There was no immediate reaction to Thursday’s verdict from local or national police groups.
John Fullinwider, a longtime Dallas activist and co-founder of Mothers Against Police Brutality, said Oliver’s conviction came as a surprise.
“I expected to see an angel fly over City Hall before I saw this murder conviction,” he said. “This is a victory, but we really need independent federal prosecutors in all fatal police shootings.”
Lee Merritt, a civil rights attorney who represents the Edwards family, said the conviction was justice for the country.
“We’ve seen time and time again, no charges, let alone convictions, in these high-profile shootings,” he said. “It is my hope that this is a turning point in the fight against police brutality against blacks.”
kurtis.lee@latimes.com

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Body Camera Video, Michael G. Stogner, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Steve Wagstaffe, Victim's Advocate

San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando to Testify.

Real life is much more exciting then reality t.v. Please join me.

Update: Continued to October 3, 2018

Hon. Judge Mark Forcum continued this motion for the third time which makes the 4th time it has been continued since filed May 1, 2018. He claimed his court had a murder trial going in it. The Lopez Motion will not take very much time at all 2 hours max and most likely 30 minutes should do. One star witness SMCSO Lt. Andrew Armando he will either take the fifth or testify he committed a Felony. Those who Matter don’t want that to happen before another case set for September 10, 2018 goes to trial, reason being as soon as Lt. Armando has his day in court the other case gets DISMISSED. It’s not good when Search Warrants are obtained by a criminal act.

Monday August 27, 2018 9:00AM Courtroom 2H Hon. Judge Mark Forcum will preside in the former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case which is approaching 4 yrs in SMC’s criminal justice system. You might recall District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe holding a press conference charging Deputy Lopez with smuggling a cellphone and drugs into the jail to a gang member inmate. Mr. Wagstaffe did not hold a press conference when a judge who finally heard the DA’s case threw out those charges, the DA and the Sheriff’s Office knew there was no evidence that connected Juan P. Lopez to those charges. That didn’t stop them or even slow them down. You would think that would cause a normal person to review/audit their own work to answer the question, How did we get it so wrong? Not the case.

Lt. Andrew Armando has been promoted twice since he obtained the Search Warrant to get his hands on Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s cellphone. He was Detective on the date he committed perjury to Hon. Judge George Miriam. After that he was promoted to Sergeant and a short time later promoted to Lt. now in charge of Internal Affairs.

Juan P. Lopez and his supporters knew from the very beginning that Armando’s sworn statement to the judge was a lie. 4 years later he will be on the witness stand.

The residents of San Mateo County should ask how many Search Warrants was SMCSO Detective Andrew Armando and District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd involved in since 2013. I know of one case 80 Search Warrants were issued. Think about that when an entire case is started with a lie, the amount of suffering caused and many guilty pleas to end the nightmare of the legal process in SMC.

May 1, 2018 Filing with perjury allegations.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Jordan Boyd, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County’s District Attorney Office needs a Performance Audit.

 

 

Update since this article first published Defense Attorney Patrick Clancy filed a motion to seal the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts of January 31, 2018 Motion granted by supposedly a SMC Judge. I say that because the DA doesn’t know who signed it.

Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>

To:

Michael Stogner,

Steve Wagstaffe

Sep 4 at 9:02 AM

Mr. Stogner:  I do not know who signed the order.  As you stated, there is no name typed below the signature, and the signature does not clearly show the judge’s name.

Karen Guidotti

 

From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Karen Guidotti <kguidotti@smcgov.org>; Steve Wagstaffe <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>
Subject: Name of Judge who sealed PH of Zain Jaffer

 

Good morning Karen and Steve

Please tell me the name of the judge who signed the Seal order. I am unable to recognize it from my copy.

We have compared it to the entire rooster, It would be nice if the name was printed below the signature.

 

Thank You

 

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

Performance Audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States.

This is not a new idea former Town of Atherton Finance Director John Johns R.I.P. made this recommendation in 2010. It was a good recommendation then and is now.

With the Zain Jaffer x Vungle CEO case 7 felonies including oral copulation of a child and assault of a Hillsborough Police Officer simply disappearing from the legal process after a private meeting between the District Attorney’s Office and Mr. Jaffer’s attorneys.  DA Steve Wagstaffe believed he was guilty of these charges from day one for almost 8 months, right up until the private meeting at the District Attorney”s Office which included a presentation of the entire defense. That is what a trial is for.

Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti became the Judge and Jury in the Zain Jaffer case.

How many cases in the last 10 years has a Defense Team made a private presentation at the DA’s office?

How many of those presentations resulted in the District Attorney filing a motion to dismiss the entire case?

Judges are the last layer of Oversight for the People of California. When they see a suspicious or questionable motion from the District Attorney’s Office they should not only deny it, they should report it to the State Bar. This motion by Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti was both suspicious & questionable. Now we just have to find out Why?

Why did Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt grant the motion to dismiss? There already was a Preliminary Hearing that determined there was enough evidence for every charge to move forward. She could have denied the motion, Wagstaffe could have tested his evidence on the Grand Jury to get an indictment if he thought his case was weak. Instead he choose to dismiss the entire case and Judge Garratt assisted him in that effort.

* Those Who Matter* email from Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, he was noticing the residents of San Mateo County that there is a special group of people above the law.

e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM

Greg and Carlos

Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time. To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the modern media’s efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday’s news and irrelevant by tomorrow.

My positive thoughts are out there for both of you.

Steve

For those readers who don’t know this e-mail was written to San Mateo County Sheriff and UnderSheriff days after they both were caught and detained as Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including at least one child. April 21, 2007 FBI Sting Operation Dollhouse, Las Vegas Nevada.

The Matthew Graves (also 30 yr. old man) case should be looked at, He was sentenced to 34 years in prison, 4 of those years are for violating a Restraining Order. This should be compared to Mr. David Bohannon being arrested twice by the Menlo Park Police Department. The second time was for violating a Restraining Order, The exact same thing Matthew Graves got 4 years in prison for. The difference is Matthew Graves got charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. Mr. Bohannon no criminal case number filed, no court appearances, no trial, extracted from the legal process.

SMDJ Article Matthews Graves

The Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County should order and pay for the Audit.

San Mateo County Supervisors contact info:

By Michael G. Stogner

4 Comments

Filed under #MeToo, #San Mateo County, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Citizens Access TV, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon Stephanie Garratt, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Mark Church, Mark De Paula, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, San Mateo County Supervisors, Sexual Harassment, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Vungle, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer