Category Archives: SMC

SMC District Attorney should have Attorney Barbara Kuehn take a polygraph. Jody Williams case.

The case of Jody Williams should be Audited. This is an out of State case of 1 misdemeanor count of unauthorized practice of law. It has a Secret Search Warrant and the complaint/Police affidavit is SEALED.

I responded to an e-mail I received from Barbara Kuehn

Hello Barbara, I hope this finds you well also. Do I know Jody Williams, as she claims? The answer is Yes, Absolutely.
She has a criminal case now in San Mateo County.
She has identified you as the person who filed the criminal complaint with the DA’S office.
Would you like to comment?
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News .com
“As for comments regarding what she is talking about, no comment.  My policy my entire career in dealing with the media, and it applies to my entire staff as well, has been, is and will always be, no comment.”
Best regards.

According to Jody Williams it all started with attorney Barbara Kuehn as a protected informant for some reason.

I know for a fact that the DA’s Office recently asked a single mother of two who reported a criminal act by her ex husband a San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy to take a polygraph. She jumped at the chance, after she passed she learned that the DA did not ask the Sheriff Deputy to take one and they closed the case.

Now we have the secret Search Warrant which has placed several victims lives in danger because of Barbara Kuehn contacting the DA’s Office with a criminal complaint. The least Steve Wagstaffe, Karen Guidotti & John F. Warren could have done was ask her to take a polygraph test before they filed for the Secret Search Warrant. Hon. Judge Gerald J. Buchwald signed the Search Warrant which was subject to an order delaying notification for up to 90 days from the issuance of the warrant. This is for a single count of prating law without a license a misdemeanor. What on earth was the Judge thinking?

Especially knowing the history of Barbara Kuehn

From the State Bar.

September 17, 1999

BARBARA JEAN KUEHN [#152283], 47, of Burlingame was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE. Credit toward the actual suspension will be given for an interim suspension which began Dec. 5, 1998. The order took effect Sept. 17, 1999.

Kuehn represented a woman in a dissolution in which the family home was sold, profits were to be split 50-50 after payment of debts, and Kuehn was entrusted with the proceeds of the sale.

She distributed more than $6,000 of the entrusted funds to herself without obtaining the court’s authorization. As a result, she was charged with, and pleaded no contest to, embezzlement. She agreed to cease practice for one year, home detention for six months, a fine of $3,750, three years of probation and 200 hours of community service.

Kuehn was placed on interim suspension last December.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #CarlosBolanos, #OperationDollhouse, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, Attorney Barbara Kuehn., Attorney Generals Office, Board of Supervisors, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizens Access TV, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, DDA Ben Blumenthal, Don Horsley, Heinz Puschendorf, Hon. Judge Gerald Bushwald, Hon. Judge Robert Foiles, Jordan Boyd, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sheriff Munks, Silicon Valley, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

Good Day for Juan P. Lopez.

IMG_0773

Yesterday for the first time in almost 4 years the defense attorneys Tony Serra and Maria Belyi for Juan P. Lopez were able to present to Judge Mark Forcum why the Search Warrant obtained by San Mateo County Sheriff Det. Andrew Armando should be quashed. The short version is he lied to Hon. Judge George Miriam in his affidavit for Search Warrant of Juan’s cell phone data. He told the Judge that the contraband cellphone recovered from the jail had received two suspicious calls. The key word here is suspicious, the reason being is Detective Andrew Armando made those two calls to the contraband cellphone himself. He also found two text messages on a different cellphone that had the name “Juan” in them. The cellphone was owned by a Hispanic female, nevertheless Andrew Armando concluded that name “Juan” had to be San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez. DDA Bryan Abanto stood up in court and defended the actions and behavior of Andrew Armando claiming he had probable cause to investigate on that theory. He doesn’t share with Judge Forcum that the Sheriff’s Office and his Office had interviewed the female owner of that cellphone many years ago and she told them ” I don’t know Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez.” They have been hiding the interview for all this time.

October 17, 2018 Judge Forcum ruling on the motion.

It’s time for the residents of San Mateo County to speak up. Stop the corruption in our courts.

How is San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Andrew Armando still employed?

How is he not investigated and charged with crimes? Look to Carlos Bolanos & Steve Wagstaffe.

May 1, 2018 Motion

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, 911, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Jordan Boyd, Karen Guidotti, Maria Belyi, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Sheriff Lt. Andrew Armando, San Mateo County Sheriff Office, San Mateo County Superior Court, Senator Jerry Hill, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Tony Serra, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum

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

 

This is a very good article, Thank You LATIMES,

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

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

9/23/2018 LATIMES

Few reports against police upheld

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

By James Queally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oakland police did not respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lopez said the ordeal had a lasting effect.

Leave a comment

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

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe fails to Mention Motion to Dismiss the Entire Zain Jaffer case.

The Zain Jaffer case was dismissed July 2, 2018. That is a fact.

San Mateo County should Audit this case and determine if the legal process was followed. He was arrested for Attempted Murder of his 3 year old son, why did that disappear so fast. Did CPS & APS follow protocol?

 

The decision to dismiss the entire Zain Jaffer case must have been made before this Media Update of Cases of Interest was sent out. What date was it decided to dismiss the case? What date was the motion to dismiss prepared? What date was the motion to dismiss filed with the court? The reason I ask these questions is that Zain Jaffer read a prepared statement in court written before hand by a public relations firm, so they all knew this was going to happen.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM 

TO: MEDIA MEMBERS 

FROM: STEPHEN M. WAGSTAFFE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

Media Notes For Monday, July 2, 2018 

CASES OF INTEREST IN COURT TODAY 

Peo. v. Zainali Jaffer (2-16-88), Hillsborough Police Department 664- 288.7(B)/288(B)(1)/245(A)(4)/273A(A)-Two Counts/243(B) Misdemeanor October 15, 2017; Defendant Is 29 Year Old Hillsborough Resident And Former CEO Of Mobile Advertising Company “Vungle”; At 3:56AM Sunday Morning Police Were Dispatched To Defendant’s Home In 1000 Block Of Lancaster Road In Hillsborough; They Were Met By Defendant’s Father Who Was Cut And Bleeding In Face From Being Beaten By Defendant; Father Directed Police To Backyard Where Officers Found The Naked Defendant On Top Of And Sexually Assaulting His Three Year Old Son Who Was Screaming; Officers Approached And Defendant Started Choking The Victim With His Legs; The Defendant Ignored Orders To Stop And Kept Choking The Child; Officers Had To Use Taser To Control The Defendant; The Defendant Continued To Resist The Officers And Spat At The Sergeant; The Officers Determined That Defendant Had Also Punched And Struck His One Year Old Daughter As Well As The Three Year Old Son And Beat His Father When The Father Tried To Intervene; 17-NF-012415-A (DDA Sharon K. Cho)
-The case is set at 1:30 in Dept. 9, Criminal Presiding Judge Stephanie G. Garratt, for the pretrial conference. The case is set on August 27, 2018 8:30 for jury trial. This is the third setting of the jury trial date since the superior court arraignment on February 15, 2018. The defendant is out of custody on $300,000 bail bond (posted on October 26, 2017). The defense attorney is Daniel Olmos (retained) and Patrick Clancey (retained). 

Here are the charges minus the Attempted Murder Charge the Hillsborough Police called for.

COUNT 1: PC664/PC288.7(b) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Attempted Oral Copulation With Child 10 Years Old Or Younger in violation of PC664/PC288.7(b), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER being a person 18 years of age or older, did attempt to engage in oral copulation with John Doe (3 years old), a child who was 10 years of age or younger. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c). 

COUNT 2: PC288(b)(1) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Forcible Lewd Act Upon Child in violation of PC288(b)(1), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly commit a lewd and lascivious act upon or with the body or certain parts or members thereof of John Doe (3 years old), a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of the said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER or the said child, by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm. NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667.5(c) NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Willful failure to register is a crime. NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require the court to order you to submit to a blood test for evidence of antibodies to the probable causative agent of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Penal Code Section 1202.1. 

COUNT 3: PC245(a)(4) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Assault By Means Likely To Produce Great Bodily Injury in violation of PC245(a)(4), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully commit an assault on Firoz Jaffer by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. 

COUNT 4: PC273A(a) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, John Doe (3 years old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered. 

COUNT 5: PC273A(a) (Felony) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Child Abuse in violation of PC273A(a), a Felony, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, injure, cause, or permit a child, Jane Doe (1 year old), to suffer or to be inflicted with unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care and custody of said child, injure, cause, or permit the person or health of said child to be injured or did willfully cause or permit said child to be placed in such situation that his/her person or health was/were endangered. 

COUNT 6: PC243(b) (Misdemeanor) 

On or about October 15, 2017, in the County of San Mateo, State of California, the crime of Battery Upon A Peace Officer in violation of PC243(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed in that ZAINALI JAFFER did willfully and unlawfully use force or violence upon the person of Peter Gould when said defendant, ZAINALI JAFFER, knew or reasonably should have known that said person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1054.5(b), the People are hereby informally requesting that defendant(s) and his or her attorney provide to the People the discovery required by Penal Code Section 1054.3. This is a continuing request pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 1054.7. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those things stated on information and belief and those I believe to be true. 

Executed on October 17, 2017, at San Mateo County, California. 

Also here is an e-mail to reporter at the PADP where he is describing a witness from the P.H. Jan. 31, 2018

From: Steve Wagstaffe
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PMTo: Emily Mibach
Subject: People v. Jaffer

Hi Emily,

Here is the description of the testimony by the instructor:

DEFENSE THEN CALLED MARTIN ROMUALDEZ, D’S JIU-JITSU INSTRUCTOR FOR 6 MTHS PRIOR TO INCIDENT, AND THEN CALLED OFC REY. MR. ROMUALDEZ TESTIFIED THAT WHAT HE OBSERVED ON THE BODY CAM FOOTAGES WAS THE DEF PERFORMING A JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT HE HAD BEEN TRAINED IN (ARM BAR/TRIANGLE). MR. ROMUALDEZ ADMITTED HOWEVER THAT IN THE NUMEROUS PRACTICE SESSIONS WHERE D AND HIS SON JOHN DOE WERE INVOLVED THAT D WAS NEVER NAKED, THAT IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY SCREAMING ON THE PART OF JOHN DOE, THAT JOHN DOE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE IN PAIN, THAT JOHN DOE WAS NEVER INJURED OR TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. INSTRUCTOR FURTHER ADMITTED THERE IS NO JIU-JITSU MOVE THAT INVOLVES INSERTING FINGERS INTO ONE’S ANUS OR SELF-STIMULATING IN THAT MANNER, AND THAT THE PRACTICE SESSION S WITH D AND HIS SON NEVER INVOLVED ANY KIND OF TRASH TALK OR LANGUAGE SUCH AS “PUSSY.”

San Mateo County should Audit this case and that includes CPS & APS.

By Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #TimesUp, Board of Supervisors, Citizens Access TV, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Don Horsley, Hillsborough Police Department, Hon. Judge Mark Forcum, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, John Beiers, John Maltbie, John Ullom, Karen Guidotti, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Palo Alto Daily Post, Patrick Clancy, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer