Zain JafferD.A. Stephen M. WagstaffeKaren Guidotti
Update: from this morning
12/30/2021 Opposition to motion filed Comment Opposition to Petition to Seal Arrest
01/03/2022 Motion hearings Original Type Motion hearings Judicial Officer Hill, Elizabeth M.Hearing Time 10:00 AM Result Held Comment PC 851.91 Parties Present Defendant Attorney: OLMOS, DANIEL
Today at 10 AM Courtroom 2A the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hill will preside over a Motion by Attorney Pezhman Pakmeshan to Destroy all records in the Zainali Jaffer case. On December 30, 2021 Opposition to Motion was filed.
Before the Superior Court of California County of San Mateo approves such a Motion, I’m asking that you Correct the Record and Synchronize it with the known Facts. The Odyssey Portal Court Records in the Zainali Jaffer case start with a criminal case being filed on 2/13/2018. The entire DATA from October 15, 2017 until February 13, 2018 is MISSING. That’s 4 months, Who caused that to happen?
Zainali Jaffer was arrested on October 15, 2017 by the Hillsborough Police Department for Attempted Murder of a child (his 3 year old son).
The Official State of California Court Record fails to mention San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe Filed a Criminal Case against Zainali Jaffer on October 17, 2017 and he was arraigned in Court on October 17, 2017. The Attempted Murder of a Child was NOT one of the charges.
The Official Court Records in the Zainali Jaffer case should be preserved until the PUBLIC can be sure there is no corruption in the State of California Courts.
Who is responsible for the DATA in the Odyssey Portal Court Records?
Who has access to that DATA?
I would recommend before ANY Judge rule on this Motion, they view the Hillsborough Police Department’s Body Worn Camera Video of the October 15, 2017 4:00AM arrest. Also check with Town of Hillsborough to see what their position on the Destruction of all records might be.
The last time San Mateo County News.com interviewed Hillsborough Police Chief Mark O’Connor on the Arrest of Zainali Jaffer he said he stands by ALL of the Charges. That includes the Attempted Murder of a Child.
This case should be studied in every Law School in the United States of America.
On Monday January 3, 2022 at 10:00 AM the Hon. Judge Elizabeth M. Hill will hear a Motion to Destroy all of the Records and Body Worn Camera Video from the Hillsborough Police Department. This same motion was on calendar for December 20, 2021 where DDA Sharon Cho informed Judge Barbara Mallach that the District Attorney’s Office had ISSUES with this and filed a Motion to Continue which was Granted.
These Records have been sealed from the very beginning, the Public has never had access to these records. Why? Here is the Very Little information that we do know.
From: Steve Wagstaffe Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PM
To: 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.”
Remember John Doe was Zain Jaffer’s 3 year old son.
The Odyssey Portal Superior Court Records for People vs. Zainali Jaffer 17NF012415A shows this criminal case was first filed on February 13, 2018. That is 14 days after Steve Wagstaffe’s e-mail to reporter Emily. How does that happen?
Was Steve Wagstaffe’s e-mail to Emily Mibach a Violation of the Court Order to Seal the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts?
Click on Search Case Records, Click on Accept, lower right hand corner, Click Odyssey Portal, Click Odyssey Portal No Registration Required, Scroll to bottom, Click Odyssey Public Portal, Click Smart Search, enter 17NF012415A
Zain JafferD.A. Stephen M. WagstaffeKaren Guidotti
Upadte: This Motion to Destroy has been continued to January 3, 2022
Today December 20, 2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2A the Hon Judge Barbara Mallach will rule on a Motion to Destroy all of the records in the People vs. Zainali Jaffer case 17NF012415A. The Public is invited to attend in person.
Who filed the Motion to Destroy all records and Body Worn Camera Video?
I call this the “Magic Case” because of the “Magic Meeting” held on June 7, 2018
Who is speaking for the two Children?
Diminished Capacity is No Excuse for Criminal Conduct
This case should be taught at every law school in the United States of America. NOT Destroyed.
Mr. Jaffer said he appreciates that justice was served in his case and that he wants to help other people who find themselves in similar situations. “I was incredibly fortunate that I was able to defend myself through the legal system, but I am aware that many others are not. Moving forward, I plan on examining ways that I can help others who are innocent and are seeking to obtain justice.”
Mr. Jaffer I had hoped to see you sooner, that has not happened yet, let me bring the People vs. Juan Pablo Lopez case NF433910A to your attention, I think this case is exactly what you were talking about when you made your statement in a Superior Court of California County of San Mateo.
Just to refresh your memory, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez was arrested 7 years ago at gun point at one of his homes in front of his son. He was falsely charged with Smuggling a Cellphone and Drugs to a Hells Angel Gang Member who was an inmate in the Redwood City Jail, so both of you know what the inside of that jail looks like.
The Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case is the perfect example of Organized Crime and Corruption that I have witnessed in the last 20 years. As you can imagine the personal humiliation of being arrested twice, falsely charged, the cost for Attorneys for 7 years, and the loss of Income for 7 years.
Most recently Hon. Judge Joseph Scott, Court Clerk Kimberly Bihl and Court Reporter Jocelyne Fakhouri conspired to commit a crime and then did. PC115(a)
Also most recently Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Presiding Judge Leland Davis III issued a policy change for Public Access by Telephone.
Public Access Policy Updated 11/22/21 – The listen-only public access lines are no longer in effect; proceedings are open to the public to attend in person.
This policy change is most likely connected to the Juan P. Lopez criminal case and the RECORDING from July 27, 2021 which PROVES a Judge, a Court Clerk, and Court Reporter committed a Felony.
Mr. Jaffer, I know you are busy, Thank You, for considering this as one of your cases to help.
How many Criminal defendants hire a P.R. Firm to promote the story they wish the world to hear.
Over the last 20 years I have attended many, many criminal cases and trials in San Mateo County, I know of only one case where the defendant hired a professional Crisis Management Public Relations Company to promote a fictional story. That case is the Zain Jaffer Criminal Case.
Some of you know I have recommended San Mateo County Residents Audit the Zainali Jaffer Case and the former San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Case. One start to finish less than 9 months and the other 6 years in the judicial system and still counting. What are the differences?
Sitrick and Company is one difference.
A Private Meeting with the District Attorney’s TEAM after a Preliminary Hearing is another difference. How many times does that happen? That meeting is where the SMC residents should focus, was it recorded? What was really communicated that afternoon, Think about that. What could possibly have been communicated during that meeting that caused many San Mateo County Employees to forget their Oath?
This is Terry Fahn & Stuart Pfeifer of Sitrick and Company’s Work July 23, 2018 which is 21 days after the Entire case was dismissed.
July 23, 2018 09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Patrick Clancy, attorney for Zain Jaffer, co-founder and former CEO of video ad company Vungle, today thanked Stephen M. Wagstaffe, District Attorney for the County of San Mateo, for going out of his way to clarify that Mr. Jaffer is completely innocent of any form of sexual misconduct.
“examining the case and recognizing it was not supported by the facts.”
Tweet this
Mr. Jaffer was arrested in October 2017 after an altercation with family members caused by a dangerous reaction to doctor-prescribed medication. In July, the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office dismissed all charges against Mr. Jaffer, a move that could open the door to Mr. Jaffer’s return to Vungle.
In a new statement published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mr. Wagstaffe said: “We do not believe that there was any sexual conduct by Mr. Jaffer that evening and for this reason we dismissed the sexual abuse charges. The physical injury charges were separately dismissed because we believe that the injuries were the result of Mr. Jaffer being in a state of unconsciousness caused by prescription medication.”
Mr. Clancy praised the District Attorney’s office for clarifying the facts and making it clear that Mr. Jaffer is completely innocent of any sexual assault charge.
“Mr. Jaffer did not do anything whatsoever that could be considered sexual. He suffered an adverse reaction to medication and in the process injured some family members. It was accidental and could have happened to anyone,” Mr. Clancy said, “Thankfully, the District Attorney and his staff reviewed all the evidence and made the right decision.”
“The sexual assault charges were dismissed because they never happened. It was only the physical injuries to his family that were dismissed because of Mr. Jaffer being in a state of unconsciousness. Unconsciousness can range anywhere from sleep walking to an epileptic fit. The person has no control over his actions, no awareness of his actions, and no intent to do any of his actions. He is unconscious.”
The San Mateo Daily Journal said Mr. Wagstaffe praised his prosecutors for “examining the case and recognizing it was not supported by the facts.” The D.A. told the Palo Alto Daily Post that they “avoided the possibility that Mr. Jaffer would be wrongfully convicted.”
Mr. Clancy said: “This should put an end to the spread of misinformation and gossip that has prevented Mr. Jaffer from returning to his role at Vungle, the start-up he founded.”
Lets just take this one simple sentence by Terry and Stuart “Mr. Jaffer did not do anything whatsoever that could be considered sexual.
How does that statement stack up with this from Steve Wagstaffe on October 17, 2017.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, we filed a felony complaint against defendant Zain Jaffer. We charged him with five felonies and one misdemeanor as follows:
Count I 664-288.7(B) felony oral copulation on a minor under 10 years old Count II 288(B)(1) felony forcible lewd act on a child Count III 245(A)(4) felony assault likely to produce great bodily injury Count IV 273(A)(A) felony child abuse
Count V 273A(A) felony child abuse Count VI 243(B) misdemeanor battery on a police officer
On Tuesday afternoon, the defendant was arraigned in RWC Felony Court, Judge Cristina Mazzei. The defendant appeared with retained attorney Daniel Olmos of Palo Alto. The defense motion to continue was granted and no plea was entered. The case was continued to November 1, 2017 1:30 for entry of plea and to set a preliminary hearing date. Bail was set at $300,000. I do not know whether he is still in custody or has been released on bail (you can check with the Sheriff’s Office PIO for that detail).
The child victim was the defendant’s three year old son. The officer who was the victim of the battery was not seriously hurt. My assistant will email to you a copy of the charging document setting for the charges.
Thanks Steve
Or this Statement from Steve Wagstaffe to a reporter
From: Steve Wagstaffe Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:01 PM To: 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.”
It’s fair to say that Sitrick and Company did not include TRASH TALK- PUSSY while naked straddling a 3 year old child at 4AM in the backyard or INSERTING FINGERS INTO ONE’S ANUS OR SELF-STIMULATING IN THAT MANNER.
Sitrick And Company does not mention the many articles I wrote about this case at San Mateo County News.com and that is understandable they were hired to promote a different story and that they did. The Question I have for Sitrick and Company is Did you ever contact CPS? Were you EVER concerned for the Safety and well-being of a 1 year old girl and a 3 year old boy. I did and I was and still am concerned.
Back to the AUDIT. The day the Jaffer case was dismissed District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe sent this email to his favorite Media. Notice he DOES NOT MENTION HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE. WHY?
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
July 2, 2018
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).
That same day Zain Jaffer read a prepared Statement, Who wrote that prepared Statement? How many defendants go to a court hearing for a Pretrial Hearing with a written prepared Statement Thanking the District Attorney for Dismissing all of Your Charges. I know of NONE.
“I was incredibly fortunate that I was able to defend myself through the legal system, but I am aware that many others are not. Moving forward, I plan on examining ways that I can help others who are innocent and are seeking to obtain justice.”
— Zain Jaffer
Message to Zain Jaffer Former San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez is a perfect case for you to pay attention to. You will remember he was arrested 6 years ago. District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe held a press conferences told the World Deputy Sheriff Lopez Smuggled a Cellphone and Drugs to a Gang Member Inmate. It turns out those Charges were completely Fabricated Who Cares?
If any of you have ever reported a Criminal Complaint to the Attorney General’s Office for a person other than yourself, I salute you. I have in the Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case involving Hacking of the California DMV Computer System. I can assure it is NOT EASY to do. As you can see by the title former Sheriff Deputy Lopez’s criminal case is still ongoing and next week will be the 6 year mark.
San Mateo County residents should AUDIT the Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez 6 yr criminal case and Zain Jaffer less than 9 MONTH case.
Just because somebody says something is true doesn’t mean that it is.
From: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> To: VictimServices <victimservices@doj.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:29 AM Subject: Re: Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback
Thank You for your quick response, let me see if I can make this more clear. The State of California data base for DMV was hacked by someone and I believe that someone is from San Mateo County Law Enforcement. DMV doesn’t even know about this. I think DMV should be notified and if you won’t do it I will. The same thing happened with the Federal data base. Thank You Michael G. Stogner
From: VictimServices <victimservices@doj.ca.gov> To: Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 8:52 AM Subject: RE: Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback
Dear Mr. Stogner,
Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Attorney General regarding a complaint against a local law enforcement agency or employee. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. If you would like to file a complaint against a law enforcement agency or officer, it is the Department of Justice general policy that local governments will be primarily responsible for citizen complaints against law enforcement agencies or employees of law enforcement agencies, and that appropriate local resources (e.g. sheriff or police department, district attorney, citizens review commission, and/or grand jury in the area of jurisdiction) be utilized for resolution of such complaints prior to a request for intervention by the Attorney General. The Attorney General will review citizen complaints against a law enforcement agency or its employees for possible investigation when substantive allegations of unlawful conduct are made and all appropriate local resources for redress have been exhausted. You should first direct your complaint to the local law enforcement agency. Every law enforcement agency in California is required to establish a procedure to investigate citizens’ complaints (Penal Code Section 832.5). A written description of the procedure is available from all law enforcement agencies. If a resolution of your complaint is not obtained through this procedure, you should write to the county district attorney and county grand jury in the county where the law enforcement agency is located. Most complaints against local law enforcement can be resolved by contacting the aforementioned agencies. If these agencies do not act on your complaint within a reasonable period of time, you may write to the Attorney General’s Office. Your correspondence should include specific information about misconduct that violates state law, the details of your efforts to resolve the complaint with the local authorities, copies of your complaint(s) to the local authorities and copies of their response(s). Correspondence that does not contain this information cannot be acted upon. Thank you again for contacting our office. We hope this information will be helpful to you. Sincerely,Victims’ Services Unit(ra)
From: Michael Stogner [mailto:michaelgstogner@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 2:26 PM To: VictimServices Subject: Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback
May 5, 2015 Social Networks Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback Submitted on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 – 2:26pm Submitted by anonymous user: [73.15.184.232] Submitted values are: Your Information First Name Michael Middle initial G Last Name Stogner Address Line 645 Prospect St. 201 Address Line 2 City San Carlos State California Zip Code 94070 Zip Email Address michaelgstogner@yahoo.com Confirm Email Address michaelgstogner@yahoo.com Area Code 650 Phone Number Your Comments message Please Investigate San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez’s California Drivers License number and address by placed on an existing ticket, failure to appear, and suspended license in the DMV data base. August 4, 2014 DA Inspector Jordan Boyd demanded Deputy Juan Lopez surrender his DL, stating it was suspended, Deputy Lopez complied and was without a license until September 29, 2014. He hired an attorney who went to LA for a court appearance for him the Judge demanded that Deputy Lopez so up in person, he did and proved it was not his ticket. Also investigate who accessed the United States Post Office data base to communicate a false statement regarding a condo Deputy Lopez owns in Redwood City, Ca. Residential to Commerical to Credit Unions which effect borrowing ability. I believe this was done by someone in San Mateo County. Deputy Lopez is currently charged with 12 felony charges.
The Zain Jaffer case was dismissed July 2, 2018. That is a fact.
Prosecutions are implicitly limited to district attorneys per California Penal Code § 739, which describes the “duty” of district attorneys to file charges after a judge finds grounds that an offense has been committed. A judge did find that in the Zain Jaffer case.
So what really happened?
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?
Zain Jaffer
D.A. Stephen M. Wagstaffe
Karen Guidotti
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 PM To: 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.
Update since this article first published Defense Attorney Patrick Clancy filed a motion to seal the Preliminary Hearing Transcripts of January 31, 2018 Motion granted by supposedly a SMC Judge. I say that because the DA doesn’t know who signed it.
Mr. Stogner: I do not know who signed the order. As you stated, there is no name typed below the signature, and the signature does not clearly show the judge’s name.
Please tell me the name of the judge who signed the Seal order. I am unable to recognize it from my copy.
We have compared it to the entire rooster, It would be nice if the name was printed below the signature.
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com
Performance Audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States.
This is not a new idea former Town of Atherton Finance Director John Johns R.I.P. made this recommendation in 2010. It was a good recommendation then and is now.
With the Zain Jaffer x Vungle CEO case 7 felonies including oral copulation of a child and assault of a Hillsborough Police Officer simply disappearing from the legal process after a private meeting between the District Attorney’s Office and Mr. Jaffer’s attorneys. DA Steve Wagstaffe believed he was guilty of these charges from day one for almost 8 months, right up until the private meeting at the District Attorney”s Office which included a presentation of the entire defense. That is what a trial is for.
Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti became the Judge and Jury in the Zain Jaffer case.
How many cases in the last 10 years has a Defense Team made a private presentation at the DA’s office?
How many of those presentations resulted in the District Attorney filing a motion to dismiss the entire case?
Judges are the last layer of Oversight for the People of California. When they see a suspicious or questionable motion from the District Attorney’s Office they should not only deny it, they should report it to the State Bar. This motion by Steve Wagstaffe and Karen Guidotti was both suspicious & questionable. Now we just have to find out Why?
Why did Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt grant the motion to dismiss? There already was a Preliminary Hearing that determined there was enough evidence for every charge to move forward. She could have denied the motion, Wagstaffe could have tested his evidence on the Grand Jury to get an indictment if he thought his case was weak. Instead he choose to dismiss the entire case and Judge Garratt assisted him in that effort.
* Those Who Matter* email from Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, he was noticing the residents of San Mateo County that there is a special group of people above the law.
e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM
Greg and Carlos
Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time. To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the modern media’s efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday’s news and irrelevant by tomorrow.
My positive thoughts are out there for both of you.
Steve
For those readers who don’t know this e-mail was written to San Mateo County Sheriff and UnderSheriff days after they both were caught and detained as Customers of Human Trafficked Sex Slaves including at least one child. April 21, 2007 FBI Sting Operation Dollhouse, Las Vegas Nevada.
The Matthew Graves (also 30 yr. old man) case should be looked at, He was sentenced to 34 years in prison, 4 of those years are for violating a Restraining Order. This should be compared to Mr. David Bohannon being arrested twice by the Menlo Park Police Department. The second time was for violating a Restraining Order, The exact same thing Matthew Graves got 4 years in prison for. The difference is Matthew Graves got charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. Mr. Bohannon no criminal case number filed, no court appearances, no trial, extracted from the legal process.
May 5, 2015 Social Networks Victims’ Services Unit Online Feedback Submitted on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 – 2:26pm Submitted by anonymous user: [73.15.184.232] Submitted values are: Your Information First Name Michael Middle initial G Last Name Stogner Address Line 645 Prospect St. 201 Address Line 2 City San Carlos State California Zip Code 94070 Zip Email Address 
