Category Archives: Zain Jaffer

Six Years ago, Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez phone call.

By Michael G. Stogner

Juan P. Lopez

November 14, 2014 Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez and I were talking on the phone. Abruptly Juan said “Got to go.” I said bye and call was ended. A couple of hours later I received a call from Juan’s girlfriend asking if I knew were Juan was I said said no why? She told me that Juan’s son told her he had been arrested at gun point in his front yard. I told her that would have explained the “Got to go” phone call. I asked her which home was he arrested at, she told me and I called Santa Rita Jail and confirmed that they had him in Jail. They couldn’t tell me why he was just in a holding cell not booked.

That was the start of so far a 6 year Journey in the San Mateo County Justice System. You will recall a Press Conference was called and District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe informed the World that San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Smuggled a cellphone and drugs to a Hells Angel Gang Member Inmate. Now if that were TRUE that would be a Bad Thing the good news is just 2.5 years later those completely fabricated charges were DISMISSED.

The Residents of San Mateo County and the Editors/Reporters of the 7 print media didn’t seem bothered that the District Attorney’s Office would have knowingly filed False Charges against a Sheriff Deputy.

San Mateo County District Attorney Inspector William Massey is at the heart of the San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case. That is no secret.

William Massey in the Sandra Lee Harmon Homicide Investigation on May 5, 2020 Half Moon Bay, California. He interviewed San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant Goulart. “This interview was not recorded.” Why?

I have a suggestion for Law Enforcement in San Mateo County, RECORD ALL INTERVIEWS.

Back to Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez Criminal case now 6 plus years and counting, through in a PANDEMIC, reduced Courtrooms, Public Access Restricted, and in the heart of Silicon Valley the Superior Courts of San Mateo County are NOT allowing ZOOM. Why?

I have a suggestion for San Mateo County Superior Courts. Have all Court appearances on ZOOM.

You might recall the Zain Jaffer Criminal Case October 15, 2017 He was arrested for Attempted Murder of a Child, and multiple Sexual Assault charges etc. That entire case from start to finish lasted less than 9 months. How is that possible?

I have a suggestion for San Mateo County Residents and all Elected Officials. Audits are normal, Audits are a Good Thing.

AUDIT the Zain Jaffer case and Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case, Compare the two cases, find out What Worked and What didn’t Work. This would help speed the log jam of court cases in SMC. The Jaffer Case should be taught at all the Universities and Law Schools.

Juan P. Lopez case is scheduled to be in court Monday November 16, 2020 for Jury Trial, several motions need to be heard first, trial is expected to last 4 to 6 weeks. This is going to be an exciting trial.

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Charles Stone, Citizen Journalist, D.J. Wozniak, David Silberman, Evidence Tampering, Former Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez, Jamie Draper, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Michael G. Stogner, Public Corruption, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, SMC Measure W 2018, SMCSO Sgt. Jason Peardon, Steve Wagstaffe, Susan Bassi, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

Sitrick and Company hired by Zain Jaffer. Why?

By Michael G. Stogner

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.”

Contacts

Sitrick And Company

Stuart Pfeifer

spfeifer@sitrick.com

or

Terry Fahn

terry_fahn@sitrick.com

(310) 788-2850

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?

Next Court Date for Lopez is November 16, 2020.

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #corruptionmatters, #EqualJusticeMatters, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney General of California, Body Camera Video, BUSINESS WIRE, Chief Deputy District Attorney Al Serrato, Chief Deputy District Attorney Karen Guidotti, Citizen Journalist, D.A/'s TEAM became Judge and Jury., David Silberman, Government Hiding the Obvious, Hon. Judge Stephanie Garratt, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Karen Guidotti, Life is great here in San Mateo County, Matthew Graves, Michael G. Stogner, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Public Corruption, Public Trust, Rick Decker, San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County News, Sean Gallagher, Selective Prosecution, SMC, Stanford Hospital, Steve Wagstaffe, Stuart Pfeifer of Sitrick and Company, Terry Fahn of Sitrick and Company, Those Who Matter, Uncategorized, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

SMC Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez case. Nov. 16, 2020

By Michael G. Stogner

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 

State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General Kamala D. HarrisMay 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.


Thank You for looking into this.

Michael G. Stogner

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #corruptionmatters, #EqualJusticeMatters, #prosecutorialmisconductmatters, #SanMateoCountyNews, Attorney General of California, Citizen Journalist, Criminal Enforcement Task Force, David Silberman, Evidence Tampering, Government Hiding the Obvious, Hannig Law, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Judicial Misconduct, Karen Guidotti, Life is great here in San Mateo County, Michael G. Stogner, Outrageous Government Conduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Public Trust, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, Rick Decker, San Mateo County Domestic Violence Protocol, San Mateo County News, Sean Gallagher, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Sitrick and Company, Steve Wagstaffe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Joyce Blair, Terry Fahn of Sitrick and Company, Victim's Advocate, Violation of Oath, Whistleblowers, Zain Jaffer

Justice for Chinedu is looking for a Candidate for District Attorney 2022

By Michael G. Stogner

This might just be a First in San Mateo County History. They are Fundraising to find the right Candidate to replace SMC District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe in 2022.

17862588_1618867384820560_4466109734454003179_n

Chinedu Valentine Okobi

As some of you know on October 3, 2018, Chinedu V. Okobi was killed by Six Sheriff Employees, One Sergeant, 4 Deputies and a Civilian CSO. December 31, 2018 Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz ruled the Manner of Death was a Homicide. There was No 911 call because Chinedu hadn’t committed ANY crime. He was simply walking on a sidewalk while Black.

March 1, 2019 Steve Wagstaffe notified the public that he would Not be filing any Criminal Charges against the Sergeant and four Deputies. He never investigated the sixth Sheriff Employee who was involved in the Homicide.

Justice for Chinedu Fundraising

Leave a comment

Filed under #2americas, #Blacklivesmatter, #citizenoversight, #corruptionmatters, #EqualJusticeMatters, #killnowlielater, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, #stayhomesavelives, Board of Supervisors, Brady List, Carole Groom, Charles Stone, Chinedu Okobi & George Floyd Homicide by Law Enforcement, Chinedu Okobi R.I.P. Homicide, Chris Hunter, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Oversight Committee, City of Millbrae, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, CSO Joseph Gonzales, D.J. Wozniak, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Deborah Penrose, Deborah Ruddock, Deputy Alyssa Lorenzatti, Deputy Bryan Watt, Deputy Coroner Heather Diaz, Deputy John DeMartini, Deputy Joshua Wang, Don Horsley, Evidence Tampering, Excessive & Unnecessary Use of Force, F.C. Watchdog, George Floyd R.I.P., Gina Papan, Ginny Kraus, Google, Government Hiding the Obvious, Jamie Draper, Jeff Regan, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Juan P. Lopez, Kevin Mullins, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Matthew Graves, Maureen Okobi, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams, NAACP, Outrageous Government Conduct, Positional Asphyxia, Public Corruption, Public Trust, Ron Collins, Rotary International, San Mateo County Counsel John Beiers, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMC Sheriff's Activities League, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Violation of Oath, Warren Slocum, Yanira Serrano Garcia R.I.P., Zain Jaffer

Atherton man arrested for Shooting at vehicle with child inside.

Document

By Michael G. Stogner

Michael Yang 37 years old arrested without incident

January 31, 2020 Atherton Police Officers arrested Michael Yang without incident and booked him into San Mateo County Jail in Redwood City for Penal Code sections 664/187 (a) Attempted Murder, 245 (a) (2) Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and 246 Shooting Into an Occupied Vehicle, and 273 (a) Child Endangerment

He allegedly fired a Semi-Automatic Firearm at a car with three adults (one being his brother) and one child inside, on Spencer Avenue, Atherton, California.

Redwood City and Menlo Park Police Departments assisted Atherton Police, which involved a Shelter in Place for several homes in the neighborhood. Excellent Job Law Enforcement this demonstrates it can be done without Injury or Death. He was transported to the Maguire Jail between 8-10 PM Jan, 31 , 2020 where he was booking in Jail.

SMCN.com will publish the Booking Photo as soon as Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos and PIO Rosemerry Blankswade provide it. Don’t hold your breath, We have requested the Booking photo of SMCSO Sergeant Lou Aquino’s DUI arrest Booking Photo for months. 

Michael Stogner <michaelgstogner@yahoo.com>
To:SHERIFFS_PIO
Feb 3 at 9:25 AM
Hello Rosemerry,
Can you please San Mateo News.com with the Booking Photo of Michael Yang?
Thank You
Michael G. Stogner
San Mateo County News.com

 

Update: 2/4/1:30PM

People v. Chihhao Yang

Superior Court Case Number 20-SF-001810-A

Charges: Counts 1, 2,3 & 4 245(B) Felony Assault With A Semi-Automatic Firearm

                Count 5 246 Felony Discharge of A Firearm At An Occupied Vehicle

He will be arraigned this afternoon Jan. 4, 2020 at 1:30 in Dept. 25, Judge Joseph Scott in Courtroom 4-A (custody courtroom) at 400 County Center, Redwood City, California.

 

Remember he was arrested for Attempted Murder.

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCounty, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Atherton Police Department, Booking Photo, Citizen Journalist, Google, Menlo Park Police Department, Michael G. Stogner, Michael Yang, Redwood City Police Chief Dan Mulholland, Redwood City Police Department, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County News, San Mateo County Superior Court, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, SMCSO PIO Rosemerry Blankswade, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Zain Jaffer

San Mateo County – Same Story

When you read Silicon Valley or Santa Clara County think San Mateo County also.

This is Great News for the Victims of Fraud in our Courts. Thank You Susan Bassi.

Link

Real Estate Investor Clyde Berg Supports Silicon Valley Journalism & Media Projects

Handshake Deal Brings Investigative Reporting to Silicon Valley’s Family Courts

CUPERTINO, CA—In a signature handshake deal, driven in part by Santa Clara County’s District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s recent refusal to prosecute another rape case, California real estate investor Clyde Berg has lent support to Bassi Productions for a collaborative project that strives to infuse substantial funding and investment to journalism, local investigative reporting and production projects that seek to bring media attention to Silicon Valley’s most shocking divorce and custody cases.

Historically, the wealth of Clyde Berg, and his activist billionaire brother Carl Berg, has attracted some of Silicon Valley’s most nefarious criminals and scam artists, yet Clyde Berg contends what attorney Bradford Baugh did while representing his former wife in a divorce case was the most elaborate legal scam of all.

As part of an alleged scam, Bradford Baugh partnered with fellow divorce lawyer Sharon Roper, who drafted a bogus post-nuptial agreement that was later determined to have been forged a year before Berg’s wife filed for divorce and made false allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence. Had Berg not challenged the forged agreement and false sexual assault claims during a divorce and related civil case, Ellena may have succeeded in fraudulently obtaining $10 million dollars from Berg’s estate. Ultimately, Clyde was exonerated of all charges and obtained a rarely issued formal “finding of factual innocence”, meaning the crimes Ellena had alleged, and garnered media attention from, never happened, and Clyde, at 73 years of age, should never have been criminally prosecuted based on false claims.

Susan Bassi, a local publisher and court watchdog who experienced her own seven-year divorce case in Santa Clara County, met Clyde Berg on social media after she had facilitated bringing national media attention to the domestic violence and custody case involving Kendra Scott and former San Francisco 49er Ray McDonald. Bassi was especially struck by Berg’s compassion to believe women like Kendra and Neha Rastogi, a former Apple manager who suffered years of abuse at the hands of her powerful immigrant CEO husband, Abhishek Gattani during their 10-year marriage.

Bassi and Berg are united in their criticism of DA Jeff Rosen. Bassi has publicly argued that Rosen has failed victims and wasted taxpayer money by maliciously prosecuting men like Berg, while giving men including McDonald and Gattani a free pass.

For the past five years, Bassi has been pushing local and national news outlets to cover family court cases, where court files are fraught with horror stories that include shocking details involving domestic violence, tax evasion, sexual assault, child abuse, rape, and fraud , all of which are typically ignored by law enforcement agencies and judges.

Mainstream media outlets historically have steered clear of investigating divorce and family court scandals, as it can be virtually impossible to sort out the “he said, she said” allegations that characterize these cases. The Berg-Bassi collaboration will seek to provide support for local reporting and production projects with added support requested from the 49ers, the Oakland A’s as well as tech and social media companies including; Apple, Google, 23andMe, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Oracle, Facebook, and Netflix where employees, investors and founders have been personally impacted by unethical private and government lawyers seeking to misuse the courts and incite conflict in families for profit.

“We live in Silicon Valley where stories arising from family courts should fill local newspapers and provide production content to an area quickly becoming known as Hollywood North. Silicon Valley has the money, drive and technology to support journalism and investigative reporting to watchdog elected officials and court systems. Justice is never served when the media isn’t watching, ” Bassi stated as the collaborative project was announced.

Berg’s support, combined with the support of other tech and social media companies, will allow Bassi Productions to direct funding to journalism projects, social media storytelling and non-profit organizations committed to social justice and bringing much needed transparency to California’s family courts and law enforcement agencies dealing with intimate partner violence, sexual assault and false claims made during divorce and custody cases.

To share a family court story, apply for grants, or to assist in project funding and support, contact: Bassiproductions.com, P.O. Box 2220 Los Gatos, CA 95031, or (831) 320-6421.

Leave a comment

Filed under #San Mateo County, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Board of Supervisors, Carole Groom, Citizen Journalist, Citizens Access TV, Citizens Oversight Committee, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, John Warren, Jordan Boyd, Judges, Judicial Misconduct, Kevin Mullins, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, R.E.A.C.T. Task Force, RICO, SamTrans Fraud Investigation, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, Scott Largent, Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, Silicon Valley, SMC, Steve Wagstaffe, Susan Bassi, Tax Payer's Advocate, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Whistleblowers, Zain Jaffer

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

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

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

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

emails&amp;literature

SMC E-mail Policy November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael,

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

Mike

Sent from my iPad

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

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

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

NUMBER: F-2

SUBJECT: E-Mail Policy

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Information Services Department (ISD)

DATE: November 7, 2018

J. E-mail Retention

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

Dear Mr. Stogner,

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

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

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

Regards,

Kristina Paszek

Deputy County Counsel

San Mateo County Counsel’s Office

400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel:  650-363-4989

Fax:  650-363-4034

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

Dear San Mateo County Supervisors,

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

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

The Public has a right to know this information.

my previous e-mail 1/11/2019

Hello Carole,

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

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

Co-owner of San Mateo County News

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

Sincerely.

Michael G. Stogner

San Mateo County News.com

1 Comment

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

Six4Three vs.FaceBook, Mark Zuckerberg

Update: The idea that Hon. Judge Swope would order Theadore Kramer to surrender his laptop cellphone and Passwords to San Mateo County Authorities by 8PM today is Nuts. Just look at what the Authorities are doing to Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez in his criminal case. R.E.A.C.T. Task force.

Today 2:00 PM in San Mateo County Superior Court 8A Hon. Judge V. Raymond Swope.

ALL PARTIES MUST APPEAR no telephonic appearances. That means people flying in from around the world.

 

30727422_1046328192172159_7715425602097905664_n

San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.

Not really sure what is left to talk about at this time since it looks like the Sealed Documents that the Judge ordered three years ago are now in the public domain from Europe. This was a two tiered Non Discloser Protective Order, Why?

To protect a favorite San Mateo County Employer?

San Mateo County Judges, Secret and Illegal Search Warrants, San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez and Jody L. Williams, Vungle x CEO Zain Jaffer criminal cases come to mind.

Here is the court documents:

SIX4THREE v. Facebook, inc

By Michael G. Stogner

CNN Article

Note: I just went to post this on my personal FB page and for the first time in 10 years I was asked to sign in. That is pretty fast for a picture sharing social media platform.

Leave a comment

Filed under #Blacklivesmatter, #MeToo, #SanMateo, #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, Board of Supervisors, California Bar Association, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, David Burruto, David Silberman, Don Horsley, Grand Jury, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jim Hartnett, Judges, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Olbert, Mark Simon, Mark Zuckerberg, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, Rosanne Faust, SAMCEDA, San Mateo County District Attorney Office, San Mateo County Manager, San Mateo County News, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Senator Jerry Hill, Steve Wagstaffe, Theodore Kramer, Those Who Matter, Warren Slocum, Zain Jaffer

Parliament, San Mateo County, RICO, Facebook, Sealed Records, Judge Raymond Swope etc.

30727422_1046328192172159_7715425602097905664_n

San Mateo County Superior Court Hon. Judge Raymond Swope.

This is nothing new or shocking for the residents of San Mateo County, Iv’e been reporting about this for 19 years. Look no further than Sheriff Deputy Juan P. Lopez, Jody L. Williams and x CEO Vungle Zain Jaffer criminal cases.

Mark Zuckerberg = NO SHOW

Not much coverage in San Mateo County by the 7 advertising businesses, Mark Simon Climate rwc, Jon Mays San Mateo Daily Journal, Dave Price Palo Alto Daily Post, Dave Boyce The Almanac, Clay Lampert Half Moon Bay Review, San Jose Mercury News, SFGATE, etc.

Yesterdays hearings 11/27/2008

Parliament TV

 

Leave a comment

Filed under #SanMateoCountyNews, #SMCJUSTICE, Attorney Generals Office, Bill Silverfarb, California State Bar, Carlos G. Bolanos, Carole Groom, Chris Hunter, City of Redwood City, Dave Canepa, Dave Pine, Dave Price, David Burruto, DOJ, Don Horsley, Heinz Puschendorf, Jody L. Williams, John Beiers, Jon Mays, Juan P. Lopez, Judges, Kevin Mullins, Mark Church, Mark Simon, Marshall Wilson, Michael G. Stogner, Michelle Durand, Mike Callagy, Organized Crime, Palo Alto Daily Post, Prosecutorial Misconduct, RICO, San Mateo County News, San Mateo Daily Journal, Secret/Hidden Search Warrants, Silicon Valley, SMC, SMC Measure W 2018, Steve Wagstaffe, Those Who Matter, Victim's Advocate, Warren Slocum, Whistleblowers, Yes on Measure A 2012, Zain Jaffer