Its been almost one year since Open Access data base has been replaced with an indisputable inferior software program. The question is what is the cost of the new software that gave the public less access? And why was open access replaced at all?
Category Archives: San Mateo County Superior Court
San Mateo County Deputy District Attorney Melissa Mckowan charged with 2 counts of Dishonesty. Not the first time
The State Bar of California has charged her with 2 counts of Dishonesty
Update: Yesterday May 15, 2017 3:00PM was first Settlement Conference next Settlement Conference is set for June 5, 2017
Trial Dates are July 5,6 & 7, 2017
April 17, 2017 There was a Court Hearing in San Francisco at the State Bar Court.
All print media in San Mateo County was notified in advance. None produced a story and none attended the Court Hearing. I know this because I was there. One other note the Almanac and the Half Moon Bay Review would not allow me to post a thread about this on their websites, this subject is off limits for some reason.
San Mateo County DDA Melissa Mc Kowan has Court Appearance Monday April 17, 2017. State Bar Supreme Court.
McKowan not only lied to a victim’s mother, she lied to SMCDA Chief Deputy M. Guidotti who was investigating the allegations of her lying.
11:00 AM, State Bar Supreme Court 180 Howard Street, San Francisco
Sixth floor, Courtroom 2. Judge Lucy Armendariz.
Update: May 15, 2017 1st Settlement Conference was held. Next Settlement Conference date is June 5, 2017.
Update: Trail Dates set July 5,6 & 7, 2017
DA Wagstaffe suspended McKowan without pay that didn’t help her to stop lying.
San Mateo County Judge Joseph Bergeron continues to make inappropriate remarks in court after being Admonished.
This is not his first Admonishment.
November 1, 2016 in Courtroom 2B while setting a date for a court matter with attorney Bill Johnston, the attorney mentioned that date was his birthday, Judge Bergeron suggested/asked the members of the public if they would bake cupcakes for him, silence was the response. A young attractive female clerk entered the courtroom and stood close to the wall when Judge Bergeron made a remark about maybe getting her to make him something for his birthday. It seems that the recent Admonishment of our judge has FAILED.
PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT OF JUDGE JOSEPH E. BERGERON
The Commission on Judicial Performance ordered Judge Joseph E. Bergeron publicly admonished, pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) ofthe California Constitution and commission rule 115, as set forth in the following statement offacts and reasons found by the commission:
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
Judge Joseph E. Bergeron has been a judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court for 18 years. His current term began in January 2015.
The commission found that, despite having been warned by the court about his behavior, Judge Bergeron treated certain women at court inappropriately, and thereby failed to maintain high standards of conduct, to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, and to be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom he deals in an official capacity, as follows:
1. On August 28,2014, a courtroom clerk was assigned to work in Judge Bergeron’s courtroom. She was not regularly assigned to his courtroom. Judge Bergeron presided over two specially set criminal matters. After the first matter concluded, the clerk stood up to retrieve the file from the bench where Judge Bergeron was presiding. He asked the clerk whether she played baseball and, before she could respond, tossed a crumpled calendar at her, which hit her in the chest and fell to the floor. The clerk, who was taken aback, responded, “I guess not.” After the second matter concluded, the judge again tossed a crumpled calendar at the clerk, which hit her in the chest and fell to the floor. Judge Bergeron acknowledges that his actions made the clerk feel angry and uncomfortable and that they were discourteous and undignified.
2. On October 7,2014, a different courtroom clerk was assigned to work in Judge Bergeron’s department. She was not regularly assigned to his courtroom. She arrived at his courtroom at 8:00 a.m. Judge Bergeron had not yet arrived at court. A jury panel was scheduled to arrive at 9:00 a.m. or 9:15 a.m. At some point that morning, the judge telephoned the clerk’s station while the clerk was on the telephone regarding the jury. He left a voicemail message stating that he did not know who his clerk would be that day, that he would arrive at court between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m., and that the jurors should not be sent to his courtroom. In his voicemail message, he asked the clerk to call him back, but because he did not leave a telephone number in his voicemail message, the clerk did not call him back. When Judge Bergeron arrived at court, he called the clerk’s supervisor from his chambers and complained about the clerk in a very stern, very loud voice, yelling words to the effect of, “She didn’t call back. She didn’t even pick up the message. You are putting people in here who can’t follow instructions.” The judge’s complaints about the clerk were so loud that she and others in the courtroom, but not jurors, heard them. Judge Bergeron acknowledges that he raised his voice and overreacted to the situation.
3. On December 18,2014, Judge Bergeron was presiding over the in-custody pretrial calendar in a fourth floor courtroom that was not his regular courtroom. A female deputy district attorney came in to the department’s conference room to pretry a criminal matter, joining another deputy district attorney, who had a cup of coffee with her. As the female deputy district attorney was leaving, Judge Bergeron asked her if her office was across the hall. When she said it was, the judge inquired about the availability of coffee there in a manner that conveyed that he would like her to bring him coffee; the facts about how he inquired, including the point at which he handed her his empty coffee mug, are in dispute. She responded by asking the judge, in a sarcastic manner intended to convey the impropriety of his request, what kind of coffee he would like and whether he would like cream and sugar. He responded, “I’ll make it easy for you” and said he would take his coffee black. As she was leaving,he said,”If I had cash [or money],I’d give you a tip.” She returned with his cup of coffee and said,again intending to convey with sarcasm the impropriety of his request, “Here is your coffee. Is there anything else I can do for you, Your Honor? Can I iron your shirts?” The judge remarked, “Well, at noon if it’s still raining outside I can give you my keys, and you can go get my car.” She responded, again sarcastically, “That may be a man’s job,” and left.
The commission found that the judge’s conduct violated canon 1 ofthe Code of Judicial Ethics (judges shall personally observe high standards of conduct and uphold the integrity of the judiciary), canon 2A (judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) and canon 3B(4) (judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to those with whom they deal in an official capacity).
Judge Bergeron’s conduct as described above was, at a minimum, improper action.
In determining to impose public discipline in this matter, the commission took into account the following aggravating factors:
First, in October 2013, less than one year before the August 2014 incident, Judge Bergeron was informed by the court’s presiding judge and the court executive officer that six female court employees had complained that he treated them in a rude, abrasive and condescending manner. They told him that it was imperative that he alter his behavior and prevent future complaints.
Second, in April 2014, four months before the August 2014 incident, Judge Bergeron received a private admonishment from the commission for embroilment and abuse of authority. An attorney in a matter pending before him had come to his courtroom and had an encounter with his clerk, the facts of which were disputed. Among other things, the clerk alleged that the attorney grabbed her arm. Judge Bergeron summoned the attorney to a proceeding to address the attorney’s actions and conducted that proceeding without having jurisdiction to do so, failed to advise the attorney of the nature ofthe proceeding or of his rights, relied on the unsworn testimony of a third party without affording the attorney the opportunity to be heard, questioned the attorney and asked him if he wanted to testify, and asserted that the attorney had committed a crime while the incident was still under investigation by law enforcement. The commission found that Judge Bergeron’s actions violated canon 1 (judges shall uphold the integrity of the judiciary and personally observe high standards of conduct) and canon 2A (judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary). Further, in December 2004, Judge Bergeron received an advisory letter for violating canon 3B(7)’s prohibition against ex parte communications by failing to place on the record prior to meeting with deliberating jurors a stipulation reflecting counsel’s consent to his meeting with jurors and for meeting with jurors after counsel objected to some of the judge’s prior meetings with jurors and stated that all communication with the jury should be made in open court.
Commission members Hon. Erica R. Yew; Anthony P. Capozzi, Esq.; Ms. Mary Lou Aranguren; Ms. Pattyl A. Kasparian; Hon. Thomas M. Maddock; Dr. Michael A. Moodian,; Nancy E. Nishimura, Esq.; Hon. Ignazio J. Ruvolo; Mr. Richard Simpson; Ms. Sandra Talcott; and Mr. Adam N. Torres voted to impose a public admonishment.
Dated: January 25, 2016
His attorney, Joseph McMonigle, said the judge realizes he made mistakes, but disagrees that his actions related to gender, according to the Associated Press.
A little-noticed decision by the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit involving Martins Beach could make life more difficult for the property owner, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, in his long-running legal battle to keep the public off his coastal land.
And it delivers the latest repudiation to San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Gerald Buchwald, whose head-scratching 2014 ruling in the suit, brought by group of surfers calling themselves Friends of Martins Beach, now essentially has been wiped from the face of the Earth.
On July 20, the state high court ordered the depublication of an April ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco in the Friends case, meaning the opinion will not appear in the appellate court’s official reports and may no longer be cited as precedent in other cases. The arcane judicial decree came without explanation.
That’s unfortunate for Khosla’s legal team, which had cited Buchwald’s ruling with fervor in a second, higher-profile lawsuit brought by the Surfrider Foundation, a case that is now awaiting a hearing before the same San Francisco appellate court. Both the Friends and Surfrider cases seek to restore public access to Martins Beach, but make different legal arguments.
The dispute over the picturesque San Mateo County beach began in 2010, when Khosla ended a decades-long practice under previous owners of allowing visitors onto the property, which is private except for the tidal zone, in exchange for a parking fee.
In his 2014 ruling, Buchwald decided that, because the ownership of Martins Beach dated back to a Mexican land grant in the 19th century, Khosla’s private property rights superceded the state’s authority to grant a right of way across his land.
“It’s a devastating blow no matter how you cut it,” Mark Massara, an attorney for Surfrider, said last week of the order to depublish. “His team relied heavily on that decision as a preemptive and overriding factor, and all of that is now legally inappropriate.”
An attorney for Khosla did not respond to a request for comment.
According to a 1993 article by the late UC Berkeley professor emeritus Stephen R. Barnett, the state high court typically depublishes an opinion when justices perceive it contains a fundamental flaw.
The appeals court opinion and the Supreme Court’s dropkick into oblivion combine to form a cascade of embarrassment for Buchwald, who plainly relished his involvement in the intricate case.
The oddest thing about Buchwald’s ruling was his still unexplained decision to grant Khosla ownership of the tidelands and submerged lands west of Martins Beach, land that generally belongs to the state, even though Khosla’s attorneys had not asked for title to the underwater realm.
The appellate court wiped away that mistake in April, upheld another part of Buchwald’s decision and reversed a third part, sending it back to Superior Court for trial. Now the whole thing must be tried again.
Friends attorney Gary Redenbacher said last week he was pleased with the decision to depublish. And he defended Buchwald. Despite their legal disagreements, he said, the judge was a gentleman.
“I wish more judges had his demeanor,” Redenbacher said in an email. “He clearly cared deeply about the issue, but as can be seen from the unanimous appellate decision, other judges did not agree with his analysis.”
Why would this take so long?
Below is the 2006 GRAND JURY REPORT A VULNERABLE SECURITY SYSTEM.
Michael, Can you give me a call at your convenience so I can better understand your interest. Thanks much. Mike Callagy 363-4129
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org>; John Maltbie <JMaltbie@smcgov.org>
Cc: Sarah Navratil <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Adrienne Tissier <email@example.com>; Carole Groom <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Don Horsley <email@example.com>; Dave Pine <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Warren Slocum <WSlocum@smcgov.org>
Subject: Secure 400 County Center Building
Dear John and Mike,
March 28, 2016 Sarah Navratil and I asked you to secure the 400 County Center Building, Redwood City, California and not Sheriff Greg Munks and UnderSheriff Carlos Bolanos. The reason why is that we don’t have confidence in either of them since they both were caught and detained as customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves in a single family residence located at 3474 Eldon Street Las Vegas Nevada April 21, 2007 during an FBI Sting called Operation Doll House.
Just to keep the facts straight I sent a letter by certified mail on May 14, 2007 to both Sheriff Greg Munks and UnderSheriff Carlos Bolanos formally requesting both to resign or retire that day.
The question we have is this, Do either of you think that our request to secure the 400 building is not a sound request. Do you think for a moment that allowing people into this building without a security check is safe?
We would like to see a statement from County Management stating that as of today all employees turn in your badges and go through the Security Check like every other person. Also lock both revolving doors the one on the Marshall St, side clearly states it is an Employee Exit door however it has a swiping device on the outside which allows people to enter the building without any Security Check.
We are asking You to take action don’t wait for the Sheriff’s Office, it is in this condition because of the Sheriff’s Office.
Thank You for considering our request.
Michael & Sarah