Thursday, March 20, 2014

San Mateo County - Come have sex with our Children!

Sick Fuck
San Mateo County: "Come have sex with our children!"  (the Allan Wayne Meaney Edition)

According to the San Mateo Daily Journal (pdf) This perverted sack of shit just got sentenced to some prison time for the (plead) crimes of Felony indecent exposure and child annoyance.

He was out on bail (for masturbating in front of a 6 year old girl and her mom) when he was apprehended for hanging out near and flirting with 9 year old girls and such...

Because he has a couple of other prior offenses, he was eligible for special 3-Strikes treatment: potentially life in prison. Fortunately (for the twisted freak) the San Mateo County Courts tossed that silly notion, and with (I imagine... I wasn't there...) less than convincing objection by the DA otherwise, the Court saw fit to go with the maximum 8 years in prison deal...

Let me list for you his convicted offenses so far:

288(a) Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a child under 14 years of age.
288(b) Prior Code -- Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a child under 14 years of age by force or fear.
288(c) Oral Copulation with a minor under 14 years of age by force or fear.
647a Prior Code - Annoy or Molest a child (with priors)
288 Prior Code - Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a child under 14 years of age.
647a Prior Code - Annoy or Molest a child under 18 years of age.

According to the Daily Journal, a State of California detention facility has labeled him to be a "Mentally Disordered Sex Offender," a label which has since been replaced with the label: "Sexually Violent Predator."

San Mateo County, in their careful consideration, sentenced the "Sexually Violent Predator" to "nearly" seven years in prison (So.. that would be SIX years, San Mateo Daily Journal...) with 756 days of  credit -- that would be MORE than TWO years of credit (In case the Daily Journal needs some math help...) for time served.

So, let's see: Three Strikes Candidate, Sexually Violent Predator label,  CONVICTED (God only knows how many were NOT convicted) for count them: (one, two, three, four)... FOUR priors. with a chance to get the established repeat offender off the street forever, and San Mateo County leaps at the chance to put him in jail for:

Maybe 3 years by the time you give him all of the time off credits..

DA Steve Wagstaffe (who will be running UNCONTESTED for DA again) called this:

"a good outcome."

Uh... good for who, exactly? Whose side are you on, Stevie Baby?

San Mateo County: Come have Sex With Our Children!

31 comments:

  1. Anyone know who the prosecutor was on this case?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phil Spector and Ayres are both at the Stockton prison. Think they've swapped noted about Weinberg?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they've swapped scabies, or teamed up to sexually abuse some other inmate, as ayres did at Napa State....

      Delete
  3. This is the case to watch:


    Party Name Type Case Name Category Case Number Filed
    MCGUIRE, DENISE M PLAINTIFF DENISE M MCGUIRE VS CHRISTOPHER LANGE BURNETT HARASSMENT CIV523986 09/06/2013

    ReplyDelete
  4. The case to watch:

    On 4/10/14 at 9:00 AM there will be a hearing that will be more like a mini trial in the case of McGuire vs. Christopher Burnett.

    The Palo Alto Daily Post reported last year that Burnett, a Menlo College wrestling star had been arrested for sexual assault against Mguire's six year old twin sons. Wagstaffe nevertheless this case on his daily press list.

    Wagstaffe says one thing but the Stanford doctors who unlike Wagstaffe actually interviewed the boys say the complete opposite. Wagstaffe says one of the boys made an inconsistent statement: the Stanford doctors signed sworn affidavits saying they didn't.

    Wagstaffe has already been sent a warning from the California Bar about lying to the press. We're gonna go with the Stanford doctors.

    Mother wants Burnett charged while Wagstaffe doesn't want to , and his excuse for not doing so holdsno water.

    This should be a very interesting hearing on April 10, where the mother of the victims will be asking for a restraining order against Burnett. The public is encouraged to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meant to say that Wagstaffe for strange reasons didn't alert the press to the Chris Burnett sexual assault case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. X-Men director Bryan Singer accused of raking 15 year old boy at dru- fueled Hollywood party:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/x-men-director-bryan-singer-accused-sexually-abusing-15-year-old-boy-article-1.1759389

    ReplyDelete
  7. The victim of Singer and his well respected attorney Jeff Herman, along with the victim's mother gave a kick-ass press conference today, in which they named three more Hollywood predators. The attorney stated that he had heard from "dozens of victims" of pedophile Hollywood producers and agents in the last week.

    http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/21/michael-egan-press-conference-hollywood-sex-ring-lawsuit-bryan-singer/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I bears mentioning that one of the accused say they have proof they weren't there at the time stated in the complaint. another says they have never been to the estate in Hawaii.
    Point being this victim may be correct in his assertions of assault by these men, but based on what their spokes people are saying he seems to be conflating events and possibly confusing them in time and place. To my mind that confusion in the victims reporting of who what where and when speaks of the number of occasions being so high he can actually confuse them, add in he was high on whatever they gave him to gain acquiesence and you have a dead cert he is going to place at least one person in the wrong place or event that did actually happen. Fact is he comes across as believeable to me because he doesn't hem and haw about the perps identity's.
    I know from experience that inexact memory when reporting abuse will be used against you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sad news: Robert Damir, the intrepid attorney who represented San Mateo parents in the 1960s in their battle to keep the schools from showing Ayres' gross sex education series to children, died on April 23, 2014.

    Damir filed the lawsuit, Citizens for Parental Rights v, San Mateo County Board of Education on September 6, 1968.

    Although the parents who objected to Ayres' sex ed program at the time had no idea he was a pedophile, they told reporters in 1968 at the New York Times and Newsweek that the series was akin to pornography.

    One couple, Howard and Margaret Scott, were so alarmed by the series that they kept their children out of school on the day it was aired. They were jailed for doing so. ( Wonder if they can get their record expunged?)

    When Ayres was sued in 2003 for molesting a male patient in the 1970s, Ayres, while listing every last little accomplishment on his resume, never uttered a peep during depositions to the victim's attorney about his infamous sex ed series on PBS called "Time of Your Life."

    It was a former medical partner of Ayres who spilled the beans about the series to victim's advocate and journalist Victoria Balfour in 2006. The medical partner said he couldn't watch it after one episode, describing it as "over the top"; "disgusting" and that he felt that Ayres was "using it to procure."

    In early 2007, before Ayres was arrested, Balfour tracked down a number of the parents who had filed the lawsuits as well as Damir . She also tracked down the head of the San Francisco PBS station that first aired the series, but he did not recall the show at all.

    Neither the parents nor Damir were in the least bit shocked to hear that Ayres was being investigated for pedophilia.

    After Ayres was arrested, Damir and the parents met in May, 2007 at a gathering in Danville, California at the home of Lynette Dupree, the daughter of a deceased protester named Bruno Moscini.

    Amy Yarbrough, a reporter for the legal paper, the San Francisco Daily Journal, covered the event. The story was printed on July 5, 20007.

    Robert Damir told Yarbrough that when he filed the lawsuit, some accused him of being a "right-wing extremist" or "having a sexual hangup."

    Luckily, he said, he recalled " getting just tremendous support in particular from the folks who were concerned about the children being exposed to too much, " he said. " I remember getting calls from Illinois, Indiana."

    The parents who filed the lawsuit, Damir said, "were not kooks. They were not carrying banners. They were not burning anyone in effigy. "

    Thanks for all of your work, Bob.

    There will be a service for Damir at 11 AM on Monday, 4/28.
    Calvary Armenian Church, 725 Brotherhood Way, San Francisco.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Huh? What's wrong with this picture? Wagstaffe refuses to charge Menlo College wrestling student Chris Burnett ( as named in the Palo Alto Daily Post) for sodomizing and molesting twin six year old boys under his care and for locking them up in a suitcase and threatening them, despite telling the mother of the victims that he "felt so strongly about the case" that he, Wagstaffe, was going to try it himself. Doctors and the Menlo Police believed the twins' allegations and they have strong evidence.

    But then in another case, Wagstaffe turns around and refiles charges against a man who allegedly kissed a girl after Judge Diaz threw out the charges.WTF? If the perpetrator did so, that is horrible, but why did Wagstaffe go so far out on a limb on this smaller case and yet not press charges against Burnett?

    Is it because Judge Diaz threw out the molestation charges in the kissing case and Wagstaffe - by all accounts, from many criminal attorneys, who can't stand to be wrong and has never ever admitted to making a mistake, had a hissy fit because his fragile ego was bruised about the charges being thrown out?

    DA recharges school worker for kissing 6-year-old student
    April 25, 2014, 05:00 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal

    Prosecutors frustrated that a judge dismissed felony molestation charges against an after-school aide refiled the same counts stemming from the Millbrae man’s alleged kiss of a 6-year-old female student on the San Mateo campus.

    Eric Michael Renz, 21, was originally charged with two molestation counts and possession of child pornography which was allegedly discovered after his arrest. Judge Marta Diaz two weeks ago found insufficient evidence to hold Renz to answer on the two sex crime charges but sent him toward trial for the pornography.

    On Thursday, prosecutors filed anew the molestation counts which District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said is legally allowable on cases that are not dismissed entirely when the evidence supports it.

    “I think the evidence clearly shows that this was not simply a friendly act. When you put together the facts of the case, that he’s in possession of child porn and he’s kissing a child, one can’t call it simply affection,” Wagstaffe said.

    ____

    Wagstaffe has been spreading stories about Judge Diaz and Dr. Ayres to reporters, off the record for years, but he won't do the right thing and speak to investigators at the California Commission on Judicial Performance about what he said was Diaz interfering with the police investigaiton?

    He attacks her behind her back, and then covers her when people try to do something about Diaz.

    There is some weird ego thing going on with Wagstaffe in this kissing case, and we suspect he refiled the charges out of revenge and because he can't stand to have anyone try to put a dent in his power ( although internally he's incredibly weak.)

    Gosh: even when he got dinged by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for being racially biased in his jury selection in the Biletnikoff case, Wagstaffe couldn't even admit to making a mistake.

    In the end, this will be his downfall. Mark. Our. Words.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe this is Judge Marta Diaz's way of retaliating against Wagstaffe for telling reporters that she tried to get the police to stop investigating Ayres?

    San Mateo County government is the most podunk, childish and unsophisticated operation in California.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree with your comment about San Mateo County govt being childish and unsophisticated.

      Attorney Chuck Smith, a former prosecutor and the lawyer for this kissing molester in the Daily Journal story, has a photo displayed in his office of Judge Marta Diaz sitting on his lap!!!

      What a crooked, incestuous cesspool San Mateo County is.

      Delete
  12. Posted over at the Atherton Almanac today:


    A call to the Almanac
    Original post made by Hotel Operator on Apr 30, 2014


    Good morning, Mr. Gibboney. This is your wake-up call.

    Your paper has recently noted voters don't have much choice in county elections. What is your paper doing about this?

    Are you contacting Michael Stogner to sit down with him and see if you can provide a meaningful endorsement?

    Are you contacting Don Horsely to see if he intends his "no salary" commitment to endure for a possible second term? During that call, are you going to ask him if he's going to accept Stogner's invitation to debate?

    For that matter, would you host and moderate such a debate?

    Are you investigating possible crimes committed by a member of the D.A.'s family against another family member, and the cover-up by the D.A.? Have you asked Wagstaffe about this? Or is that meant to just be reported on (or not) if someone else uncovers it?

    All of these are WELL within the boundaries of ethical and accepted journalism. You're all we have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crimes are:

      Steve W. against Gerry W.

      And Joe W. against E.W.

      Delete
  13. Well, it is appropriate to post the above comment that talks about the crime committed in the Wagstaffe family under "San Mateo County - Come Have Sex With Our Children" thread.

    VERY appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. San Mateo voters have options in the election for Sheriff this June. Greg Munks, up for re-election, was caught going into a house for underaged prostitutes in Las Vegas in 2007. He received no punishment but PRAISE from Wagstaffe after this horrifying incident. Munks has protection from Wagstaffe..

    Munks then proceeded to DISBAND the sex crimes unit at the Sheriff's office. Those who were in the unit believed that it was because Munks and his undersheriff Bolanos are predators themselves.

    Deputy Sheriff Juan Lopez is a registered Write-In candidate for the Sheriff position. Please vote for him.

    You can see his platform on his website. One of the things he wants to do is restore the sex crimes unit.


    http://electjuan.com/lopezplan.php



    Protect Against Sex Crime

    Currently there is no sex crime unit at the Sheriff's Office. It was disbanded several years ago. This decision was short-sighted and flies in the face of reality on the ground, with approximately 300 such cases received a year by this office. Not to mention the need to pro-actively monitor sex registrants in our jurisdiction. I will change this, restore and fully staff the unit - to protect our children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't realize that there was a correlation between disbanding the sex crimes unit and the Munks/BOlanos debacle. The sex crimes detectives did a good job. Raffaelli, Earles and Chong come to mind. Are they all retired now?

      Delete
    2. Munks likes those little Hispanic girls.

      http://gregorymunks.tumblr.com/

      https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Fair-Oaks-Queen-of-the-Festival-Scholarship-Program/199412010083494?hc_location=timeline

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous, May 7, 2014, 5:58 pm.

      Yes, there is a correlation between the Munks/Bolanos debacle and the sex crimes unit.

      Chong and Raffaelli- some of the very few ethical deputies at the Sheriff's office- retired two years ago. They were very good at their job. I don't know if Earles is still there.

      Word is that Bolanos used to bully Raffaelli all the time, and some at the sheriff's office believed it was because Munks and Bolanos are predators and that's why they hated the sex crimes unit.

      How sad that the corrupt Munks and Bolanos are still there, while they successfully made life so miserable for the few ethical cops there that they couldn't take it anymore and left.

      Delete
  15. http://www.almanacnews.com/square/2014/05/01/position-paper-prosecutorial-misconduct-by-michael-g-stogner--candidate-for-supervisor-district-3

    POSITION PAPER: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, BY MICHAEL G. STOGNER, CANDIDATE FOR SUPERVISOR District 3
    Original post made by Michael G. Stogner on May 1, 2014


    When San Mateo County's two top law enforcement officials, Sheriff Greg Munks, and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, were caught and detained as CUSTOMERS in an FBI Sting called Operation Dollhouse which involved Human Trafficking and underage sex slavery in a house in Nevada back in 2007, our District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe did not denounce this heinous behavior.

    He wouldn't even hold his tongue. Instead, he praised Munks and Bolanos:

    Steve Wagstaffe 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

    4/25/2007 4:49 PM Greg Munks to Steve Wagstaffe

    "thanks Steve.."

    In response, Munks wrote: "Steve, I really appreciate your words of
    support.... I've heard you took some heat for them and I apologize. I won't forget the fact that you were there early."

    This is prosecutorial misconduct. I have long advocated a system of checks and balances in San Mateo County to keep officials like Wagstaffe honest. This includes a whistleblower's hotline and a County ombudsman reporting to a citizen's oversight board.

    I don't know about you, but the Wagstaffe e-mail makes me sick to this day. "To those who matter". One thing I am certain of, he didn't mean the San Mateo County taxpayer when referring to people who matter.

    Why is this happening in San Mateo County, in the middle of Silicon Valley and all of the wealth and education here? This behavior would be inconceivable in neighboring Santa Clara County, where the D.A. Jeff Rosen at least puts on the appearance of trying to hold law enforcement to the same standards as ordinary citizens.

    This all goes back to corruption in San Mateo County. It's not the rantings of some fanatics. Our own County museum has an exhibition on it.

    It is a shame no one is running against Wagstaffe. We need to shake up the way this County is run. I intend to do so if I earn a supervisor's seat. Public employees need to be accountable to you, the voters, not to each other. There needs to be an end to the arrogance that San Mateo County officials can literally do anything they want and get away with
    it.

    Unfortunately the press here in San Mateo County has been too apathetic.
    The two top Sheriffs get caught in a Human Traffick sex house, and the D.A.
    praises them for it. And they continue to run unopposed to this day.

    What is Don Horsley's position on this? Does he think this is a problem?

    Unbelievable. It needs to change.

    Michael G. Stogner.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To reporters:

    The crimes you MUST investigate:

    Steve W. against Gerry W.

    Joe W. against E. W.

    Like father, like son.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A citizen named Darlene Flaim posted under the Almanac thread about Wagstaffe. She had gone to Wagstaffe about an elder abuse case. He handed it off to prosecutor Melissa Mckowan, who did nothing and was not nice to Flaim and the mother of the victim.

    Here is Flaim's comment on the Almanac thread:


    Posted by Darlene Flaim, a resident of another community
    26 minutes ago
    Thank you for this information. Wagstaffe is no friend to the citizens in San Mateo County, especially the elderly and disabled. He refused to criminally prosecute a paid caregiver who stole over $175K from the Estate of a quadriplegic who died at the hands of the caregiver. And the caregiver was being paid with SM county funds through IHSS to provide care while collecting unemployment at the same time! The family did all the hard work gathering the evidence and provided the DA with copies of medical records proving neglect, bank records showing on line direct transfers of funds straight into the caregiver's bank accounts and tons of other evidence! But because we didn't discover the abuse until after he died, he refused to prosecute claiming is was "he said" "she said" and "he" was dead. So disrespectful and unprofessional. IMO Wagstaffe and the entire DA's office should be investigated by the Attorney General for prosecutorial misconduct. And your are right....the Santa Clara County's DA's record is far more impressive; he actually cares about and acts to protect his constiuents and their families!

    ReplyDelete
  18. What do Joe Wagstaffe and Steve Wagstaffe have in common?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, well, well, seems like good ole Sheriff Munks is still a wee bit touchy about that little incident where he was caught going into a brothel for underaged prostitutes in Las Vegas in 2007. Michael Stogner posted this over at the Atherton Almanac:


    The Guy is Supervisor Candidate Mark DePaula and he asked Sheriff Greg Munks a question.

    Yesterday at the Beyond Newtown Summit event which was held at CSM and open to the public, Mark DePaula approached the Sheriff identified himself as the candidate for Supervisor District 2 and asked him this question, 'Did the FBI exonerate you in Operation Dollhouse 2007" Sheriff Munks responded "This is no place to talk about that." which is an ok response but than he takes it a step further and says to a deputy "I don't think this guy belongs here."

    Our Sheriff has had 7 years to practice answers to that question or similar questions that the public has been asking. This question should not have startled the Sheriff as it appears to have done. His statement to his Deputy is shocking and an abuse of power. Put yourself in Mark DePaula's position
    he was not carrying a weapon as both the Sheriff and Deputy were, he was signed in and wearing name tag at a public event.

    Why would he not belong there? Because that statement was made in front of Mr. DePaula he was startled and offered to discuss this with the deputy elsewhere so they both left that area for awhile.

    This is the most powerful Law Enforcement Official in San Mateo County with no oversight.

    ReplyDelete
  20. From the above calendar:

    Appeal: Appellant's opening brief Due Date.
    When: Monday, May 12, 2014

    * * *

    What does this mean in English? Is the child molester appealing its conviction, its sentence, or something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When ayres plead "no contest" his lawyer specified that it was a no contest plea under "West" -- as good as a statement that he intended to appeal the conviction, and he also stated that intent in the press. On October 30th, he did just that.

      ayres is the "appellant" in his appeal. If you go to the "ayres' Court Dates" tab, you'll see how you can link to the court to look up his case.

      Note however, that 5 "due dates" for his "opening brief" paperwork have come and gone, and now the appellate court has erased at least one related status note from its page.

      No idea if they're giving him more time than they give other people. Don't care really, as long as he's still locked up....

      Delete
    2. Although... if they're giving him more time than permitted, and then he files a successful appeal, that would not be great...

      Delete
  21. Deep: will you be making an endorsement in the Sheriff's race and in the Carole Groom/ Mark DePaula race for Supervisor

    ReplyDelete
  22. Comment posted over at the Atherton Almanac today:

    Posted by Tsk tsk tsk, a resident of another community
    4 minutes ago
    Munks married into BIG money, the daughter of Bill Lane, owner of Sunset magazine.

    I woke up this morning thinking of the irony of this all. Before big labor starting buying and owning the election process in California and San Mateo County, a cop running for political office would be considered the blue collar outsider trying to break into the old boy's club. His opponent would most likely be a Stanford or Harvard educated scion of a wealthy family.

    Now the two cops, Munks and Horsely, both very wealthy multi-millionaires, are the establishment candidates and Stogner is being called too poor to run against Horsely.

    Pretty funny if you think about it.

    Of course, you have to ask yourself if other "personal issues" of candidates can be relevant here. Like the D.A., Steve Wagstaffe's son being accused of a very serious crime, and Wagstaffe hushing it up rather than referring it to an independent prosecutorial agency. It's the biggest "known secret" in San Mateo County.

    Report Objectionable Content

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let's just say that it is very appropriate that the comment about Steve Wagstaffe's son's crime was posted in the "San Mateo County- Come Have Sex With Our Children" thread.

    ReplyDelete