Category Archives: SMC Measure W 2018

Supervisor Warren Slocum asked to Resign from Verified Voting. Why does he have to be asked?

By Michael G. Stogner
In the last month Verified Voting has had 2 Advisory Board Members (Whistleblowers) Resign. The question I have is why haven’t the other 45 members done the same?
Community election reform activist Brent Turner has been warning San Mateo County and the USA  about the vulnerabilities surrounding election systems. For the past six months Turner has publicly requested Supervisor Slocum step down due to a conflict of interest as Slocum sits on the board of Verified Voting. Turner has for years alleged Verified Voting had ” unclean hands” as a ” consumer watchdog ” as Verifed has business relationship with Microsoft and vendors. Turner originally became familiar with Verified Voting’s and Stanford professor David Dill from Dill’s ability to obtain Federal grant monies. Turner has alleged that Dill and his associates have blocked best election security efforts for personal gain. The following correspondence explains further.
Warren–
As citizens of San Mateo County we are embarrassed by your association with this apparently nefarious activity.

Please consider joining other Verified Voting board members in stepping down from this group.

Brent Turner

I would like to underscore and amplify Mr. Turner’s recent message by urging that all individuals who wish to maintain integrity in elections, who are in positions of leadership or affiliated with Verified Voting, should promptly resign. Before doing so, though, they should immediately move to have the VerifiedVoting.org organization dissolved and the Verified Voting Foundation removed from its 501(c)(3) status.

Everything that Mr. Turner has mentioned about the manner in which I and my company, Notable Software, Inc. were robbed of our share of the NSF ACCURATE grant, including by members of Verified Voting, despite the grantee’s continued and unauthorized use of my intellectual property, both in their funding application and in the naming of the Center, is true and well-documented. 

Please also note certain highlights of the recent Fast Company article, as follows:

Richard DeMillo <https://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/richard-demillo>, a Georgia Tech professor who sat on Verified Voting’s advisory board, and UC Berkeley statistics professor and associate dean Philip Stark <https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/>, a VV board member, have resigned from the advocacy group, stating that they believe that Verified Voting has been giving election officials false confidence in some voting machines and providing cover for the companies that make and sell these machines.

In DeMillo’s December 1 resignation letter to Barbara Simons (chair of VV’s board of directors), he claimed that “Verified Voting’s policy positions were unpredictable, contradictory, and not aligned with the values I once believed we shared. On more than one occasion, Verified Voting has taken contradictory public stances in the span of a few days, undercutting allies and supporters. The pattern of espousing new positions and making public statements that take local VV stakeholders by surprise is nothing new. Rather than seeking out advice, Verified Voting has gone to great lengths to avoid it.”

With respect to VV’s involvement in a Risk Limiting Audit (RLA) pilot in Georgia, DeMillo claimed that “Verified Voting’s seal of approval for the security theatrics in Bartow County undermines efforts to make elections more accountable. … No audit based on an untrustworthy audit trail can confirm the correctness of the outcome. Billing such an exercise as an RLA and touting it as a proof of security plays into the hands of cynics.”

Stark, who resigned on November 21, accused VV of being on the “wrong side” saying: “Our message to jurisdictions that buy poorly designed, insecure, universal-use BMD [ballot marking device systems] should be, ‘We tried to warn you. You need a better voting system’ … Instead, we’re saying, ‘Don’t worry: VV will teach you to sprinkle magic RLA dust and fantasies about parallel testing on your untrustworthy election. All will be fine; you can use our authority and reputation to silence your critics.'”  [End of Article Summary]

I personally worked side-by-side with some of the members of Verified Voting in the early years. It is to our collective credit, in part, that Voter Verified Paper Ballots (a concept that I promoted extensively, years prior to the formation of VV, and even prior to Bush v. Gore) are now considered the Gold Standard for elections.

Those of you who have, since then, endorsed technologies that promise to undercut the authenticity of these ballots, have put an indelible blemish on your formerly fine work. You should be ashamed of yourselves and embarrassed about what you are doing to endanger voting at this critical time in history, when it is likely that the Impeached US President will be running for re-election. Please leave your egos at the door and dissolve Verified Voting, as it is now as untrustworthy as some of the voting machines and methodologies you have encouraged for adoption. The World Is Watching.

With extreme sincerity,

Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D.

 

December 1, 2019
Barbara Simons, Chair Verified Voting Board of Directors
Dear Barbara,
It is with profound regret that I resign from the VV Board of Advisors. When you invited me to join the board shortly after the 2016 elections, I agreed for three reasons. First, Verified Voting’s promise to promote policy positions that “are based on scientific evidence and understood best practices in election administration” offered hope in addressing a decade or more of willful neglect of those principles in Georgia. Second, I thought that lending my name to the organization would help in the fight to eliminate vulnerable, unauditable voting machines in Georgia and nationwide. Third, I understood that my voice would be joined with the voices of respected colleagues to be sought out, valued, and debated by the organization’s leadership. However, it soon became apparent that Verified Voting’s policy positions were unpredictable, contradictory, and not aligned with the values I once believed we shared. On more than one occasion, Verified Voting has taken contradictory public stances in the span of a few days, undercutting allies and supporters. The pattern of espousing new positions and making public statements that take local VV stakeholders by surprise is nothing new. Rather than seeking out advice, Verified Voting has gone to great lengths to
avoid it.
I have tried over the last two years to engage in dialog, but you, Marian, and her team have been unwilling to have face to face conversations, even when we are in the same city and sometimes the same building. These apparent disconnects have been seized upon and exploited in Georgia and other states to weaken, not enhance, the cause of accurate and verifiable elections. Although my concerns have been growing for some time now, Verified Voting’s involvement in a “pilot RLA” in Georgia following the recent election makes it impossible to continue as a member of the advisory board. VV issued and supported misleading public statements that those pilots confirm outcomes and even prove the security of new election systems. Verified Voting’s seal of approval for the security theatrics in Bartow County undermines efforts to make elections more accountable. This exercise conducted behind closed doors and billed as a practice run—even if flawlessly conducted—could only confirm the correctness of the tally of the unverified (and therefore possibly corrupted) ballots, not that the ballots tallied were correctly marked. No audit based on an untrustworthy audit trail can confirm the correctness of the outcome. Billing such an exercise as an RLA and touting it as a proof of security plays into the hands of cynics. Whatever benefits accrue from this practice, it does not help public understanding to aid election officials in misstating the results. A similar false claim was made in Pennsylvania the following week. Verified Voting subsequently tweeted a weak repudiation of the incorrect Pennsylvania claim, but let stand an identical incorrect assertion in Georgia. That unrefuted statement will surely be a factor in future litigation. Most recently, Marian’s essay, posted on verifiedvoting.org shortly after Philip Stark’s November 22 resignation from the board, doubled down on these and other expanded claims. It is a short essay, but I count at least nine distinct contradictions of prior Verified Voting statements and published positions. In light of this, the promise to pursue policy positions based on scientific evidence and best practices rings hollow. I can no longer lend my name to Verified Voting. Some, including anti-transparency activists, conflicted supporters of ballot marking devices, politicians trying to silence and intimidate critics, and opponents of evidence-based policy, have already mischaracterized the mainly technical debates within the election integrity community. If they are successful at confusing the public about the correctness of election outcomes in Georgia and elsewhere, I fear it will be in some measure due to the absence of values once embraced by Verified Voting.
Respectfully,
Richard DeMillo Charlotte B. and Roger C. Warren Professor of Computing and Executive Director of the Center for 21st
Century Universities Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, Brent Turner, Citizen Journalist, electioneering, Outrageous Government Conduct, Philip Stark, Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D, Richard DeMillo, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Grand Jury, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Verified Voting, Victim's Advocate, 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

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 Residents are the Winners.

image001

For Immediate Release:

The Peninsula Progressives Announce Winners for Assembly Delegates, District 22

Self-Organized Slate Representing the People of District 22 of San Mateo County

image002

SAN MATEO, CA — February 1, 2019 The San Mateo County Peninsula Progressives, a group of citizens who organized its own slate, announce the election win of all nine of their founding members to the California Democratic Party Delegates representing Assembly District 22.

The winners include:  Regina Islas, Victoria Sanchez De Alba, Adonica Shaw-Porter, Uma Krishnan, Dan Stegink, Ted McKinnon, You You Xue, Joe Little, and Mike Dunham.

“We are unified Democrats, a self-organizing slate by the People and for the People to represent the District of San Mateo County,” said Dan Stegink, a Founding Member of the Peninsula Progressives. It was great to see people who were energized to turn out to vote and as we prepare for the 2020 Presidential, as well as for California state elections.”

Diverse representation, especially women, in leadership positions, is needed to accurately reflect the demographics of San Mateo County; as well as in state, and federal offices. It is vital now, because the Democratic Party will be selecting a new Chairperson and endorsing the next State Senator for the district.

The Progressives platform is based on the needs and wants of the many people in the community to build an inclusive, equitable, representative and just society for all Californians.  And, we look forward to serving, listening, and learning more about what our communities need in order to bring these needs and visions into reality, including:

*Representation and Justice for all; *Medicare for All; *Women’s and LGBTQI Rights Unbridged; *Remove Corporate Money from Elections; *California Green New Deal; *Affordable Housing and Renter Protections and *Law Enforcement Oversight.

The Peninsula Progressives won 9-5 over the Assemblymember Kevin Mullin and State Senator Jerry Hill slate. We extend hearty congratulations to our fellow delegates: Harini Krishnan, Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo City Council Member Rick Bonilla and Foster City Mayor Sam Hindi for their election as delegates and to Chelsea Bonini for her election to the Executive Board.

The Peninsula Progressives appreciate the welcome of Senator Hill and Assemblymember Mullin. “We are excited to be working together to resolve critical issues facing our communities and the upcoming election of a new Democratic Party Chair and the endorsement of a new State Senator,” said Regina Islas, a Founding Member.

Most importantly, we want to thank each and every voter and supporter who gave their time, effort and interest on Saturday, Jan. 26 to make this slate a reality, we are humbled and proud to serve you!

The Progressives welcomes inquiries at:  penprogressives@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Peninsula-Progressives-2217190631676730/

About The Peninsula Progressives:  Representation & Justice for ALL CALIFORNIANS; Green New Deal; Med4All; Affordable Housing Renters Rights and Law Enforcement Oversight.

Notice the photo Mark Simon uses for his article. Our Flag at half mast, Why?

Political Climate with Mark Simon: Peninsula Democratic Party elections expose left-wing divide

in Featured/Headline/PoliticalClimate by

There was good news and some not-so-good news from the Peninsula Democratic Party this past weekend.

The good news is the massive turnouts at two caucuses to elect regional representatives to the California Democratic Party. The caucuses are held in each of the state’s Assembly districts and turnout Saturday in the 22nd (represented by Kevin Mullin) and in the 24th (represented by Marc Berman) was huge with well over 600 attendees at each event.

This is a dramatic improvement over prior caucuses, where turnout was a couple of dozen or so.

Clearly, Peninsula Democrats are energized by the success of the 2018 congressional races, by the policies and conduct of the current president and by the prospect of winning the White House and the U.S. Senate in 2020.

The not-so-good news is that the party is split between self-described progressives and “establishment” Democrats, reflecting a national divide that could undermine the Democrats’ chances of winning in 2020. And, because this is the Democratic Party, there is even a split among the progressives, although it can get a little confusing because every Democrat running for these delegate slots seemed to self-describe as a progressive.

And speaking of self-description, the party doesn’t divide delegates into male and female candidates. They divide themselves “self-identified female” and “other than self-identified female.” Sometimes a thing just speaks for itself.

In the 22nd District caucus, a slate of Peninsula Progressives essentially took the lunch money of a slate backed by Mullin and state Senator Jerry Hill. The Progressive slate won 9-5 over the Mullin/Hill slate, despite the very high-profile presence of both legislators at the caucus.

Some of this is a function of fundamental politics – the Progressive slate, said to have been organized by political activist and county Harbor Commissioner Sabrina Brennan, worked harder to get more of their voters to the caucus.

Still, it’s a slap at the influence of two well-established Peninsula politicians. The Mullin/Hill slate was heavily populated by other elected officials and three of the five lost – Burlingame Councilwoman Emily Beach, Belmont Councilman Charles Stone and San Bruno Mayor Rico Medina.

In the 24th, the fight was between two Progressive slates and while they each won their share, it does not bode well for Democratic unity that the left wing of the party is competing with itself.

ANY NUMBER OF ANGRY PEOPLE: If there is a message in the defeat of an establishment slate, it might be further reflected in a 12-8 vote Friday by San Mateo County Cities Selection Committee to put Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and oust Redwood City Councilwoman Alicia Aguirre.

One of the factors driving Papan’s victory was concern – more like anger and distrust — that the region is moving swiftly to establish housing construction quotas that are aimed, quite particularly, at San Mateo County. Papan positioned herself as someone who would be appropriately aggressive in fighting that effort, and her selection is another example of an insurgent victory over the local status quo.

AN OPEN FIELD: The 24th Assembly District caucus was a nice win for former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who is running for Hill’s Senate seat. She was the top vote-getter among the “self-identified female” candidates, showing she still can carry the day among Santa Clara County progressives.

Lieber was a Mountain View councilwoman before winning an Assembly seat in 2002. She ran against Hill for the open Senate seat in 2012, and he won by a 2-1 margin. But Lieber outpolled Hill by 8 points in the Santa Clara County portion of the district.

The Senate candidates will report their 2018 fundraising totals at the end of the week, and it is expected that public interest entrepreneur Josh Becker will report a total in excess of $300,000, well ahead of his three opponents – Lieber, Redwood City Councilwoman Shelly Masur and Burlingame Councilman Michael Brownrigg.

You can expect they will say it is too early to assume anyone has taken command of the race, and that is the problem for the four candidates.

Rumors are quite active that another candidate could get into the race and change everything. The names that are being offered – not by these individuals, but by those who want them to run – are Mullin, who represents half the Senate district, former Assemblyman Rich Gordon, now president and CEO of the California Forestry Association (and, by all accounts, quite happy to be out of Sacramento), and San Mateo Mayor Diane Papan.

Contact Mark Simon at mark.simon24@yahoo.com.

“Still, it’s a slap at the influence of two well-established Peninsula politicians. The Mullin/Hill slate was heavily populated by other elected officials and three of the five lost – Burlingame Councilwoman Emily Beach, Belmont Councilman Charles Stone and San Bruno Mayor Rico Medina.”
It’s about time the residents of San Mateo County woke up. Jerry Hill, Kevin Mullin, Charles Stone, Mark Simon all members of TEAM “Those Who Matter” Did more than simply endorse the Yes on Measure W campaign and all except Simon endorsed Carlos G. Bolanos for Sheriff in the last election.
Not one of them is in favor of Law Enforcement Oversight.
That’s telling and their Silence on the Murder by Sheriff Deputies of Chinedu V. Okobi October 3, 2018 in Millbrae should cause the residents to pay attention.
By Michael G. Stogner

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Adonica Shaw Porter, Bill Silverfarb, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chinedu Okobi, Chris Hunter, City of Millbrae, Dan Stegink, Dave Canepa, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Joe Little, Kevin Mullins, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Dunham, Positional Asphyxia, Regina Islas, Sabrina Brennan, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Ted McKinnon, Those Who Matter, Uma Krishnan, Victim's Advocate, Victoria Sanchez De Alba, Warren Slocum, You You Xue

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

“Those Who Matter”against Quality of Life in San Mateo County.

Whenever I see these four people and a small group of their friends and supporters I can’t help but think of my father John Donald Stogner aka Tex. He was an average guy who worked 6 days a week 12 hours a day to support his wife and 4 children. He was in the grocery store business for 38 years. He had no time or interest in politics, he voted every election, my mother worked at the polls every year. Neither one of them suspected that elected officials would spend taxpayer money against them in order to promote or pass a tax measure that would harm them or the business my father earned his living from.

In this video you will see 4 people who were instrumental in the Yes on Measure W campaign, not shown is SamTrans CEO Jim Hartnett husband of Rosanne Faust who claims a victory in getting the message out and beating the opposition which there was none. The opposition would be people like my mother and father hard working people just trying to get by. Rosanne does not mention the $650,000 of taxpayer money her husband spent on Educational Outreach Programs involving 501-C organizations. When you add the $1,100,000 that she raised thats $1,750,000 vs. the $5,700 a few brave individuals put together for the No on W campaign. Note the Yes on W supporters are the people that receive the taxpayer money and the No on W are the people stuck with paying it.

San Mateo County Elected Officials have been misleading the residents for many years. The 2012 SMC Grad Jury warned the residents of it “Inconvenient Truth” They are spending taxpayer money hiring word-crafting consultants, and conspiring to place tax measures on the ballots again using taxpayer money to make sure it will pass if put on the ballots. You will notice the Yes on W Team can’t name one citizen that came before the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and asked Please place another 1/2 cent sales tax on the ballot to make SMC even more expensive to live in.

It will be interesting to see the communications e-mails, memos, letters, between the power players of San Mateo County that caused Measure W to be created in the first place, funded and passed by less than 500 votes in the last 2 days of a long count.

San Mateo County has a new e-mail destruction policy I have written about starting February 1, 2019. I wonder why?

SMCN.com Article County deleting e-mails

THE GAME

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Greg Conlon, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, John Maltbie, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, SamTrans, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Yes on Measure A 2012

Greg Conlon to Supervisors, Fund the recount of Measure W.

December 11, 2018 San Mateo County Board of Supervisor Meeting, Public comment.

 

December 4, 2018 Supervisor Meeting, Heinz Puschendorf, Fund the recount.

1 Comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, Don Horsley, electioneering, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, Jim Sutton, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Lennie Roberts, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matt Grocott, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Ron Collins, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Clerk to Supervisors, San Mateo County Elections Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, TBWB, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum

Why SMC Supervisors should pay for the recount of Measure W.

 

 

 

August 8, 2017 the Supervisors gave $350,000 of taxpayer money to Jim Hartnett to pay for the behind the scenes Outreach Consultants to work against the taxpayers.

See if the title for Agenda item 4 sounds honest: Study Session Regarding Transportation Obstacles, Opportunities, and Needs. The reason I ask is the Grand Jury reported the Supervisors mislead the residents to pass Measure A in 2102.

2012 Grand Jury Report

August 8, 2017 BOS meeting click on #4,7

Heinz Puschendorf requesting the recount of Measure W

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Felony misappropriation of public money., Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Heinz Puschendorf, Jim Hartnett, John Beiers, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, RICO, Robert Foucrault, Rosanne Faust, Sabrina Brennan, SAMCEDA, SamTrans, San Mateo County Elections Office, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Will Holsinger, Yes on Measure A 2012