Category Archives: Secret/Hidden Search Warrants

Millbrae Officials Silent on in custody death of pedestrian Chinedu V. Okobi.

On October 3, 2018 in the middle of the day on El Camino Real, Millbrae, California. Chinedu V. Okobi died after 5 San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies, Tased him, hit him with extended baton, and sprayed him with OC spray, at least 4 deputies were on top of him when he stopped breathing, was he turned on his side as policy requires, who if anyone provided CPR.

The City of Millbrae has hired the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office to provide peace officers or public safety services for the residents. Captain Paul Kunkel took over the Millbrae position just 3 weeks before this in custody death of a pedestrian happened.

We are not talking about a violent bank robbery, or car jacking suspect, we are talking about a man walking down the sidewalk. At the very minimum this demonstrates the provider is incompetent and at the maximum criminal behavior.

I have not seen or heard any comments from these two gentlemen who are responsible.

Kunkel_p copy

0-3

Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams

Millbrae City Council members below

 

 

 

These are the seven people who are responsible to the residents of Millbrae to provide Police Services. They have remained silent. Many Good and Concerned Citizens have been speaking up at the Board of Supervisors Meetings demanding answers to what really happened that day Release the video and audio recordings.

12/4/2018 Supervisor Meeting over 40 speakers

02/13/2019 Chinedu’s Birthday, 37 Balloons given with Petition of 50,000 signatures to D.A. Steve Wagstaffe.

That night I attended a Vigil at 1400 El Camino Real, Millbrae, California it was a stormy night full of love and respect for Chindeu and his loved ones. I did not see any of the seven people above attend. I did meet two neighbors who said they are terrified of the Police in Millbrae. I told them they don’t have Police in Millbrae they have the Sheriff’s Office, big difference. They also said they are sickened by what happened to Chinedu Okobi. I thanked them for attending and sharing their thoughts.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, 911, Ann Scheidner, Anne Olivia, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Chinedu Okobi, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, DOJ, Don Horsley, Excessive & Unnecessary Use of Force, Gina Papan, Grand Jury, John Burris, John Warren, Judicial Misconduct, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams, NAACP, Ordinance 04430, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rueben Holober, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMCSO Captain Paul Kunkel, SMCSO Sgt. Weidner, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Wayne Lee, Whistleblowers

LVMPD to a Citizen Journalist “Just because you have a website doesn’t mean your part of the Press.”

The above statement made at 1:41 minute mark in video. At the 11:00 mark they arrest the citizen journalist. This was at the Metro Press Conference.

This is the same Las Vegas Metro Police that did this to Jody L. Williams door at 9:30PM October 12, 2018. Claiming they just wanted to ask her a couple of questions. It’s also the same LVMPD that told Mark DePaula that they had nothing to do with the April 21, 2007 Operation Dollhouse Sting by the FBI which Detained/Transported UnderSheriff Carlos G. Bolanos according to Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf former President of the DSA.

thumbnail

When you see this door, think about Who and What, Jody L. Williams knows.

Dennis Hof R.I.P. & Antonio Pastini R.I.P.

Jody Loren Williams was charged in San Mateo County August 8, 2018 18SM009489

The entire case has been sealed. Why, it’s a Misdemeanor?

Arrest Warrant issued on October 2, 2018

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, DOJ, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Illegal Search of Cellphone, Jody L. Williams, John Ullom, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kamela Harris, Kevin Mullins, Mark De Paula, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Brosnan, Mike Callagy, Ordinance 04430, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

San Mateo County’s Measure W should be audited. It passed by about 500 votes in the last 2 days of counting. DMV

By Michael G. Stogner

As a Private Victim’s Advocate I have personally filed a criminal complaint to both the State of California Attorney General Kamala Harris and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe & John Warren, then publicly informed Board of Supervisors.

SMCBOS Meeting June 2, 2015 at 19:34 minute mark

The criminal complaint was simple, some person(s) Hacked the State of California’s DMV Data Base. They placed San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez’s confidential and protected drivers license number on another person’s ticket out of Los Angeles area causing him to have a suspended license and about $6,000 expense plus 3 months of no driving. You might have guessed it, neither law enforcement agency had any interest in Investigating the complaint. There lies the problem Oversight of Law Enforcement.

LATIMES today Jan. 6, 2019

DMV under scrutiny in voting glitch
State leaders will assess whether registration errors changed November election results.
By John Myers
SACRAMENTO — Faced with evidence that some voter registration forms weren’t properly filed by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles, state officials will now investigate whether any votes were wrongly rejected and whether the final results in any state or local races should be reconsidered.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla and leaders of the agency that oversees the DMV agreed on Monday to settle a federal lawsuit brought by advocacy groups including the League of Women Voters of California and the American Civil Liberties Union. The settlement, in part, states that Padilla’s office will “take steps to ensure that every vote is counted” if ballots were rejected and will provide “guidance to elections officials in the relevant jurisdiction(s) on how to count the affected ballots and, if appropriate, recertify election results.”
On Dec. 14, DMV officials revealed that staff members had not transmitted voter registration files for 589 people whose applications or updated applications were filled out before the close of registration for the Nov. 6 statewide election. At the time, state officials could not confirm whether any of those voters had been turned away on election day, or if any had cast last-minute provisional ballots that were rejected in the final tally.
Monday’s settlement raises the possibility that a full investigation of the delayed voter registration documents could reveal races in which the outcome might have changed had those voters been allowed to participate.
State officials now have 60 days to complete an investigation into the identity of those voters and why DMV staff members failed to transmit the files in a timely fashion.
The error was the latest in a series of mishaps revealed in the first six months of operation for California’s new automated “motor voter” program, under which DMV customers are registered to vote unless they decline.
“I am committed to working with new leadership at DMV and the new administration to ensure integrity of the motor voter program and accuracy of the data,” Padilla said in a statement Monday night. “This settlement continues to move those efforts forward.”
Padilla’s office said on Tuesday that a preliminary investigation had not found any instances in which voter registration delays would have changed the outcome of a race.
The deadline to register for November’s election was Oct. 22. The records in question either came in before that deadline, or included documents signed and dated before that date. A Dec. 14 letter to Padilla from Jean Shiomoto, who was then DMV director, said the registration records weren’t submitted “due to a misunderstanding on the part of the department, for which we take responsibility.”
Shiomoto retired from state government at the end of 2018. Gov. Gavin Newsom has yet to appoint a new permanent director.
“We continue to actively work with our stakeholders to ensure full transparency for the California motor voter program,” Melissa Figueroa, deputy secretary for communications at the California State Transportation Agency, said in a statement Monday. “As an agency, we are committed to getting this right.”
The settlement, filed Monday in a San Francisco federal court, said that DMV staffers failed to transmit voter registration documents in a timely fashion beginning Oct. 12 and that all documents were held back for the three weeks following election day.
Several other problems were reported just days after state officials launched the DMV’s automated voter registration system in late April.
Those included multiple registration forms sent to counties for the same voter , flawed registrations for 23,000 DMV customers and a limited number of non-U.S. citizens — permanent green-card residents — mistakenly added to the voter rolls.
The agreement to investigate why DMV officials didn’t promptly submit hundreds of voter registration forms “establishes concrete steps that California will take to investigate and improve the DMV voter registration system,” said Melissa Breach, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Jody L. Williams, John Burris, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Kamela Harris, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Ordinance 04430, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, SamTrans, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Victim's Advocate

San Mateo County’s E-mail Deletion Policy, Put on Hold by Mike Callagy

mc_portrait_squareArtboard 1

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy

San Mateo County Manager Mike Callagy has stopped/paused/delayed this policy from going into effect Feb. 1, 2019. May 1, 2019 is the date it will go into effect unless it is rescinded.

I’ll give just a couple of examples of why this is a terrible policy. San Mateo County’s last election had a tax measure W pass in the last couple of days by about 500 votes with more than 270,000 ballots cast. Several elected officials made public statements including Audit/Recall the elections office and officer. That is pretty unusual, it will be important to go back years to find all communications between the elected officials, county counsel attorneys, Supervisors, Assemblymen, Wordcrafters who communicated about placing Measure W on the ballot in the first place, using public monies to promote it etc.

San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office used as a weapon, falsely charging people: Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case is a perfect example, you will recall Steve Wagstaffe told the world he smuggled a cellphone and drugs to a gang member in jail. That was a lie from day one,

I said falsely charging people: Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas should be considered. Her case is sealed why? 2007 she was in Las Vegas when Operation Dollhouse netted Carlos G. Bolanos at a single family home which had Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including a minor.

San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office Not charging people: Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies October 3, 2018.

November 7, 2018 one day after the election Retention Policy par. J

This has felt like one of those runaway train movies. Simply to find out Who put this on the County’s Website, Why was it put on and more importantly How to stop/pause it.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.

Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.

Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.

The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #OperationDollhouse, #OperationLooseEnds, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Positional Asphyxia, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

SIX4THREE vs. FACEBOOK

December 7, 2018 San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope Courtroom 8A. 9:00AM

Plaintiff: SIX4THREE

Defendants: Cox, Christopher, Does 1-50, Facebook Inc., Lessin, Samuel, Olivan, Javier, Sukhar, Ilya, Zuckerberg, Mark, The Washington Post

Six4Three Attorneys: Godkin, David S, Kruzer, James E., Gross, Stuart G.

Facebook Attorneys: Miller Laura E., Kim, Catherine Y,  Metha, Sonal N., Lerner, Joshua H

Washington Post Attorney: Carolan, Duffy

Yesterday I drove 90 miles be in the courtroom to observe. Many of you know I have been a Private Victim’s Advocate in San Mateo County for the last 19 years. I am very interested in the lobbying aspect and Influence peddling of the Tech companies with local governments, example Judges, District Attorneys, Local Sheriff Offices, Local Law Enforcement agencies, County Supervisors etc. What are the tech capabilities with respect to data, like hacking the California DMV computer system. I’m currently interested in keeping Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas alive. She was recently criminally charged in San Mateo County for a misdemeanor all records are SEALED. Is it possible that a friend of FB could influence the criminal charges being filed of a civilian? That is why I was there yesterday.

Hon Judge Raymond Swope, informed the people in the courtroom that it is very common for him to sign protective orders, and seal orders. That is when I realized he might not have a clue what he sealed. He did acknowledge that at least 250 pages are now in the public domain in Europe House of Commons.

Expedited Discovery: FB Attorneys claimed they don’t know what information Ted Kramer disclosed. They know what was sealed don’t they? They claim “We need to know and most importantly the Court needs to know. “How do we get to the bottom of this.”

That is a great question, in order to answer that you would need to identify what THIS is.

Hon. Judge Judge Raymond Swope was doing the work of FB attorneys when he got stopped. He tried to get attorney David S. Godkin to answer a question that violated “Attorney Client Privilege.” That is when I decided to leave, this case was getting bigger and causing more questions to be asked not less. like watching an atomic mushroom cloud grow. I have to give FB credit they not only show up with enough attorneys to fill a Mini Van they also had a Public Relations pretty girl to ask me in the hall if I was Media and do I have any questions for her about what I just observed. I answered I am the media, I’m San Mateo County News, and no I have no questions.

Styleform IT. vs. Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg responds to the 250 pages released.

By Michael G. Stogner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Damian Collins, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Silicon Valley, SMC, The New York Times, Thomas Scaramellino, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Washington Post

San Mateo County Government E-mails should be preserved not deleted.

106709_San Mateo County

Why would government want to delete, destroy e-mails? E-mails should be preserved permanently. They show the public the behind the scenes communications between elected officials who have taken an oath, and high ranking appointed officials who are supposed to represent the public’s best interest.

Below is just one example of 4 top SMC Officials communicating their support of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves being used for their personal pleasure, and their distain for the media. All 5 Supervisors shared the same idea.  These e-mails are 11 years old and still current when you add what is happening to Jody L. Williams today in SMC by Steve Wagstaffe, and John Warren.

emails&literature

SMC E-mail Policy November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages are temporary communications and the email system (with the exception of archived email subfolders as set forth below) is not intended to be used as a means of records storage. To the extent that email messages which are generated or received through the County’ s computer systems constitute business records to be retained pursuant to the County’ s (or a department’s) records retention policy, such email messages shall be retained as set forth below. Email messages that do not otherwise serve a business purpose (including, but not limited to, draft communications, administrative communications, etc.) shall be routinely discarded. For that reason, each workforce member who uses the County email system has the same responsibility for their email messages as they do for any document they obtain in the course of their official duties and must decide which communications should be retained for business o legal reasons and which should be discarded. If a workforce member has any questions regarding if an email should be retained as a business record, he or she should seek guidance from his/her supervisor and/or department head who may consult with legal counsel as necessary.

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.

Email messages that constitute records to be retained for business or legal reasons may be saved in excess of ninety (90) days in any of the following ways: (1) saved in Rich Text Format (RTF) or Portable Document Format (PDF) and then transferred to electronic filing systems or other media for long-term storage in accordance with the department’s regular filing and storage procedures; (2) affirmatively “dragged and dropped” or “cut and pasted” into email subfolders created by the user (the user must select the particular retention period that applies to any created subfolders (i.e. one year, two years, ten years, indefinitely, etc.)); or (3) printed in hard copy and filed or stored as appropriate. Any email subfolders created by the user within Microsoft Exchange will, along with the user’s in- box including any migrated mail, count toward the user’s 100GB mailbox space limitation as outlined in Section E of this policy.

Workforce members should seek guidance from their department heads to determine the specific time requirements applicable to records and electronic correspondence generated, received and/or maintained by their department in accordance with their department’s records retention policy. Workforce members are strongly encouraged to review the email content of subfolders on a regular basis and to delete any content for which retention is not required.

Regardless of countywide or departmental records retention requirements, email and other electronic correspondence pertaining to a threatened or actual legal action must be retained until the litigation is concluded. It is the responsibility of the department involved, or County Counsel, to notify ISO in writing, of the need for the hold on electronic communications.

The use or creation of local personal archive files (such as Outlook.pst files) is strictly prohibited and may not be configured on County equipment.

From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To: Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM PST
Subject: Re: Status on the e-mail deletion policy
That might be just fine, but as you can see very few people even know about this and you can stop this for a 6 month review period starting today until you decide the proper time period to hold e-mails like 20 years etc.
Michael
On Saturday, January 26, 2019, 11:09:10 AM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael,

As I understand it, the policy has been in place for years and that is the info I’m trying to obtain.  I think ISD realized we were not reaching our objective to get rid of the clutter of emails in the system, so this policy was brought back to address that.  I’m trying to find out exactly how this came back up, but it was in the works well before Nov. 2018.
Best regards,

Mike

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 26, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike,
It looks like November 7, 2018 is when this 90 day old e-mails are to be deleted Policy was created by ISD, Who came up with this if Not You?

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

NUMBER: F-2

SUBJECT: E-Mail Policy

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Information Services Department (ISD)

DATE: November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

Email messages in a// default folders of a user’s mailbox will be automatically deleted after ninety (90) days. Automatically deleted emails will be accessible in emergency situations for a period of thirty (30) days after they are deleted from the user’s mailbox.
As you and most County Officials and staff know I am a Private Victim’s Advocate and have worked on behalf of several San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and employees. Just to mention a few, Female Deputy who reported Rape Video on County Computers being viewed and shared with upper management of the Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez being abused by San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, David Silberman and others including Carlos G. Bolanos,Steve Wagstaffe, John Warren, Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf who has not been unable to get to his emails. Jody L. Williams of Las Vegas connected to Operation Dollhouse recently criminally charge in SMC. Measure A,K,W e-mails. Zain Jaffer criminal 8 felony case dismissed for lack of evidence, (sure) I can think of 60,000,000 reasons this case was dismissed. Yanira Serrano-Garcia murdered by Sheriff Deputy, Errol Chan Murdered by Swat, Chinedu V. Okobi Murdered by 5 SMCSO Deputies. SMCSO Lt. Kristina Bell DV Call to 911, James McGee 17.5 hour standoff two Swat teams after 911 call for DV no DV charges. Ramsey Saad R.I.P.
That is a short list. Please consider this a formal request to save all emails regarding any of the people and subjects mentioned above.
This subject should be discussed with the public before ANY e-mails are deleted. What is the cost to keep them?
I hope you will stop this today.
Michael G. Stogner
On Friday, January 25, 2019, 6:12:20 PM PST, Michael Callagy <MCallagy@smcgov.org> wrote:

Michael, I’m still researching this as I want to be clear when this policy started.  The policy, as I understand it, has been around a long time. It is a matter of now enforcing it.  Im trying to determine how far back the policy goes.  We don’t have unlimited storage for emails so there has to be controls in place.  Employees are encouraged to save their emails and put them in files.  It is an easy process.  I will get you the history soon.  Have a nice weekend. Mike

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 25, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> wrote:

Good morning Michael,
What is the status on the County wide policy to delete e-mails after they are 90 days old starting Feb 1, 2019?
By your response it looks like it was not your policy, Who’s policy is it?
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Kristina Paszek <kpaszek@smcgov.org>
To:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com
Jan 16 at 4:28 PM

Dear Mr. Stogner,

Your correspondence of January 11 to Carole Groom was forwarded to our office for response.  I also understand that you recently sent a follow-up e-mail today to Supervisor Groom.  This e-mail will respond to both of your e-mails.

The County’s e-mail policy is set forth in the attached Administrative Memo F-2, which was developed (and is revised from time to time) by the County’s Information Services Department, subject to approval by the County Manager.  The provisions concerning the deletion of e-mail were adopted in April 2015 around the time that the County switched from Groupwise to Outlook for its e-mail.

The County’s e-mail policy is distinct from the County and department-specific records retention policies that are approved by the Board of Supervisors.  With respect to what appear to be your concerns, although the e-mail policy reiterates that the County’s e-mail system is not intended to be a means of records storage, it recognizes that some e-mail messages that are generated or received through the County’s computer systems constitute records that must be retained pursuant to the County’s or a department’s records retention policy (or due to threatened or actual litigation), and it details how those e-mail messages are to be retained.  The e-mail policy does not impact each department’s responsibility to retain records in accordance with state law.  As explained in the policy, all e-mails that are determined to be records to be retained for business or legal reasons are to be saved.  There are a number of ways to retain such e-mails, as detailed in the policy, but we expect that in most cases, a user will simply place the e-mail in an e-mail subfolder.  A user can create e-mail subfolders and set a 1-year, 2-year, 10-year retention or mark the folder(s) to be kept permanently.  In addition, a mailbox that is being held for litigation will not be subjected to any automatic deletion until after the litigation is resolved.

Regards,

Kristina Paszek

Deputy County Counsel

San Mateo County Counsel’s Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel:  650-363-4989

Fax:  650-363-4034

 

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Kristina Paszek
Cc:Carole Groom,Don Horsley,Warren Slocum,Dave Pine,Dave Canepaand 3 more…
Jan 17 at 5:57 PM
Dear Kristina,
Thank You for your response on behalf of Board of Supervisor President Carole Groom, I’m still not sure why she couldn’t have just answered my questions directly. I now have more questions regarding the policy to delete e-mails after 90 days.  How many of San Mateo County employees have received the memo and how did they get it and when did they get it. How many managers have taken a training course on how to preserve e-mails? How many employees have taken a training course in this policy? What method was used to notify and prepare the employees for this policy?
It might be best for everyone involved to hit the stop/pause button on this policy.
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:Carole Groom,Dave Canepa,Dave Pine,Don Horsley,Warren Slocumand 3 more…
Jan 16 at 10:03 AM

Dear San Mateo County Supervisors,

5 days ago I asked President of Board of Supervisors to tell me if the BOS approved this policy. To this day Carole Groom has refused to answer that simple question.

Again I’m asking who is responsible for this idea and policy? What is the status as of today. There are only 15 days left before this terrible/unlawful policy takes effect.

The Public has a right to know this information.

my previous e-mail 1/11/2019

Hello Carole,

Could you please tell me if the Board of Supervisors approved this and if so what date and agenda item was it. I’m doing a follow up story on this subject and wanted to know who is responsible for this policy.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

Co-owner of San Mateo County News

Looking forward to getting a response from any of you today.

Sincerely.

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

1 Comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #Humantraffickedsexslaves, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Adrienne Tissier, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, Juan P. Lopez, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, MTC, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

SMC Sealed & Secret Court Orders. Hon.Judge Jeffrey R. Finnigan

I call this “Operation Loose Ends” The dots to be connected here are Operation Doll House April 21, 2007, Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez criminal case.

Jody Loren Williams case number 18-SM-009489-A

This Judge signed a Warrant of Arrest for a Misdemeanor, The Police report was sealed, The secret Search Warrant was sealed. The crime she allegedly unlawfully advertised herself as practicing and entitled to practice law between May 8, and July 26 2018. The warrant is for a failure to appear, which she had no idea she was invited.

Finigan, Jeffrey photo

San Mateo County Judge Raymond Swope is getting international attention for sealing Facebooks e-mails. The keyword here is Sealed. Why?

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Barbara Kuehn., Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Hon. Judge Jeffrey R. Finnigan, Hon. Judge Raymond Swope, Hon. Judge Robert Foiles, Jody L. Williams, Juan P. Lopez, Judges, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Organized Crime, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, San Mateo County Grand Jury, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate