Category Archives: Shot at while unarmed

Joseph F. Charles, is Fine with it.

By Michael G. Stogner

Joseph F. Charles

It’s been 19 months since Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P. was executed by San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy David Dominguez on May 5, 2020 in a parking lot located at 845 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County.

The San Mateo County Government provided a Critical Incident Video about 40 days after the Homicide. This video was created by San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd who labeled it as “unaltered” when if fact it had been altered. The Video shows Sandra Lee Harmon being shot at while unarmed and hands above her head with her back towards Deputy Dominguez. No labeling saying Deputy fired at unarmed woman. Fact Ms. Harmon was shot in the back three times all fatal.

If the County, the District Attorney, and the Sheriff of San Mateo County had determined in their investigation that Dominguez acted properly, they would never have altered the video and attempted to present it as unaltered; they would have just been honest. And there simply is no justification in any reasonable investigation to fail even to request records pertaining to Dominguez’ body cam. If Dominguez had acted with a true police objective there would be no need for the false reports, the underhanded editing of the video, nor the fear that Dominguez’ camera may hold relevant evidence.

It is Illegal to file a False Police report.

Joseph F. Charles knows this information and couldn’t care less. He’s fine with it, he is a San Mateo County Counsel Attorney.

This is what he says about himself.

About
I am passionate about serving my clients and helping them to successfully navigate the constantly changing landscape of the law. Nothing is more satisfying to me than finding a creative and efficient solution to a client’s legal dilemma. I believe that through uncompromising client service and by attaining an intimate and thorough understanding of my clients’ needs and objectives, I am able to not only resolve their current legal issues but help them to develop a plan and perspective for avoiding future legal problems.

Release the AXON LOG RECORDS, The District Attorney’s Office claims they never requested them.

Next court date for Sandra Lee Harmon’s daughter Sarah Gatliff is January 13, 2021

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC
Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon, Sarah Gatliff. (Bush, David) (Filed on 12/30/2021)

Leave a comment

Filed under "We Just Don't Know.", #SanMateoCountyNews.com, 3 Fatal Shots to the Back, 3 Shell Casings moved, Apnews.com, Associated Press, Attorney David R. Bush, AXON, AXON Log Records, AXON M Dash Camera Video & Audio, “You don’t want to be investigating your own agency.", Board of Supervisor's President David Canepa, Body Camera Video, Body struck 8 times with hollow point bullets, California Judicial Branch News Service, Caption Wordcrafting on Videos, Citizen Journalist, Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria, Uunted States District Judge, Joseph Charles, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., Let Them Sue us It's Not Our Money, Making San Mateo County Safer, Michael G. Stogner, Never too late to Investigate, Newsbreakapp.com, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Organized Crime, Public Corruption, San Mateo County Counsel, San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector Jordan Boyd, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County News.com, San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Deputy David Dominguez, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy John Baba, Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P., Sarah Gatliff, Shot at while unarmed, Those Who Matter

David Silberman, “No Current Factual Dispute based on Evidence.”

By Michael G. Stogner

Attorney David Silberman

Is David Silberman Nuts, No, simply dishonest and his job is to protect the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. Of course there is a DISPUTE, there is NO EVIDENCE provided to prove when Deputy Dominguez turned his Body Worn Camera on and off.

That’s why the AXON LOG RECORDS have not been made public, they will provide the Factual Evidence.

This is just one of the many examples of why I say San Mateo County Counsel Attorney David Silberman should be Fired.

“I think I should begin by noting that there is no current factual dispute based on evidence about when Deputy Dominguez turned his camera on and off.” This can be found on Page 11

Half Moon Bay Resident David Eblovi was forced to sue San Mateo County this week because his elected Officials and 2 City Managers didn’t chose too, That is a story all by itself, more on that later.

David Eblovi vs. San Mateo County lawsuit.

Sandra Lee Harman R.I.P. was killed on May 5, 2020 in Half Moon Bay, California, she was shot at 14 times with hollow point bullets, 8 of the bullets struck her body, 3 fatal shots to her BACK, she was shot at while unarmed, with her hands above her head, Three shell casings were moved and relocated at the crime scene.

Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos informed San Mateo County that SMCSO Deputy David Dominguez’s Body Worn Camera was turned off at the time he fired 11 shots killing Sandra Lee Harman.

Has Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos ever lied to the public before, Yes of course he has, Everybody and their mother knows that.

Very few Citizens have taken the time to Investigate and ask What is the TRUTH about the Homicide by Sheriff Employees of Sandra Lee Harman.

I can tell you David Eblovi is one of the few who did.

San Mateo County Residents should say Thank You, David Eblovi.

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #closeSMCcourtsuntilfixed, #corruptionmatters, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SanMateoCountyNews.com, 3 Fatal Shots to the Back, 3 Shell Casings moved, Ali Winston Investigative Reporter, Associated Press, Attorney General Rob Bonta, AXON, AXON Log Records, AXON M Dash Camera Video & Audio, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisor's President David Canepa, Brady List, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Half Moon Bay Defendant, Dave Price, David Burruto, David Eblovi, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Evidence Tampering, Fixin' San Mateo County, HMB City Manager Bob Nesbit, HMB Deputy City Manager Matthew Chidester, Jamie Draper, Jerry Hill, Jerry Lee, John Ullom, Jon Mays, Jordan Boyd, Joseph Charles, Just because somebody says something is True doesn't mean that it is., Kevin Mullin, Lenny Mendonca, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Nobody is above the Law except "Those Who Matter", Organized Crime, People vs. Juan Pablo Lopez case NF433910A, Public Corruption, Public Trust, Rachel Amanda Quintana, Rob Bonta Attorney General of California, SAL Board of Directors, SAL Embezzlement & Laundering Investigation, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County News.com, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Deputy David Dominguez, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy John Baba, San Mateo County Sheriff's Activities League a Criminal Organization, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Investigated Itself SAL, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Pornography & Violent Rape Video, Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P., Shot at while unarmed, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Joyce Blair, Susan J. Bassi, Those Who Matter, Unarmed Hands above Head, Victim's Advocate, When government is the enemy, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P., Zain Jaffer

Judge Dismisses some of Sarah Gatliff’s case.

By Michael G. Stogner

Sarah Gatiff is the daughter of Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P. who was killed by San Mateo County Sheriff Employees on May 5, 2020 in Half Moon Bay. Nothing has changed at the Sheriff’s Office since Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P. was killed by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office on June 3, 2014. In both cases a single Sheriff Deputy arrived on scene and didn’t report to dispatch they were there. Both put themselves in harms way with NO PLAN on what to do and no backup. Both cases have Evidence Tampering, and false statements by the Government.

Sarah Gatliff’s attorney has until November 16, 2021 to amend the complaint.

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 64 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 3

ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 21-cv-01463-VC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In her first amended complaint, Sarah Gatliff brings four claims relating to the fatal police shooting of her mother, Sandra Harmon, in Half Moon Bay, California. She concedes that the complaint does not assert any causes of action against some of the defendants she named: Carlos Bolanos, Stephen Wagstaffe, James Goulart, the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, and the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office. Those defendants are dismissed. The complaint also includes immaterial information relating to abandoned claims that is stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Dkt. No. 54, ¶¶ 5, 36, 37, 38.

The claims Gatliff brings as Harmon’s successor in interest are dismissed for lack of standing. California law requires Gatliff to file an affidavit or declaration containing specific facts to bring an action on behalf of her mother’s estate as her successor in interest. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.32. Relevant here, Gatliff must state that she is Harmon’s successor in interest or is authorized to act on behalf of Harmon’s successor in interest with respect to the present action. Id. § 377.32(a)(5). But that statement must be accompanied by “facts in support,” which Gatliff’s declaration lacks. Id.; see Crosby v. County of Alameda, 2021 WL 764120, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021). In fact, her declaration is dated two days before the purported assignment of

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 64 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 3

successor-in-interest rights from Harmon’s husband so it could not possibly include facts about that assignment.

Gatliff also has not alleged sufficient facts in support of her standing to bring section 1983 claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment on her own behalf. A plaintiff’s interest in bringing those claims is based on their relationship with the decedent. Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2018). A biological connection alone is not sufficient, nor are allegations of a close relationship or affection. Id. at 1058; Terry v. City of Pasadena, 2019 WL 4139257, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2019). Instead, a plaintiff must allege “enduring relationships reflecting an assumption of parental responsibility” that “‘stem[ ] from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in promoting a way of life through the instruction of children.’” Wheeler, 894 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256–61 (1983)). The amended complaint does not allege facts to support the conclusion that Gatliff had this sort of relationship with Harmon. It states that “Harmon was a loving mother to [Gatliff], and she was loved deeply in return” and as a result of Harmon’s death Gatliff “suffered the irreparable loss of her love, affection, society, and moral support.” Without diminishing the importance of this relationship to Gatliff, those allegations do not reflect that Harmon was involved in Gatliff’s upbringing or even that she stayed in consistent contact with Gatliff throughout her life. See id.

That leaves a state claim for wrongful death/negligence per se. Even if the claim was properly pled, the Court would decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over it once the federal causes of action are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But the claim is also not properly pled. There is no “negligence per se” cause of action under California law. Waldo v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 5554623, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013). And if treated solely as a wrongful-death claim, at least one necessary party has not been joined. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). California law treats wrongful death actions as joint and indivisible amongst the decedent’s heirs. Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg, 62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 78, 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). So each known heir is a necessary party that must be joined in the action. Id. at 82; see Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 64 Filed 10/26/21 Page 3 of 3

19(a)(1). Without all known heirs, complete relief is not possible, and the defendants risk being exposed to multiple or inconsistent obligations. Pavoni v. Chrysler Group LLC, 2012 WL 12883905, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012); Estate of Burkhart v. United States, 2008 WL 4067429, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008). Sometimes it is not feasible to join a necessary party and the action may proceed without them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). In this case, Harmon’s husband is a known heir not joined in the action. It is possible that his joinder is not feasible and the litigation may proceed anyway because he did not administratively exhaust his claim. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 911.2(a), 945.4; Estate of Burkhart, 2008 WL 4067429, at *7–8. But Gatliff has not made that argument.

An amended complaint is due 21 days from the date of this order. The defendants must respond within 21 days of the filing of the amended complaint.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2021

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

1 The defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied as moot. The Court need not consider those documents to dispose of the motion.

3

Leave a comment

Filed under #corruptionmatters, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SanMateoCountyNews.com, 3 Fatal Shots to the Back, 3 Shell Casings moved, AXON, AXON Log Records, AXON M Dash Camera Video & Audio, Board of Supervisor's President David Canepa, Body struck 8 times with hollow point bullets, HMB City Manager Bob Nesbit, HMB Deputy City Manager Matthew Chidester, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Deputy David Dominguez, Sandra Lee Harmon R.I.P., Sarah Gatliff, Shot at while unarmed, SMCC Attorney David A. Silberman, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P.