1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

District Attorney's Office Needs Probe…..2003 BOS meeting

Discussion in 'The Other Side Of The Hill' started by Michael Stogner, Nov 13, 2014.

  1. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is what the San Mateo Daily Journal has today on this story in archives.

    DA's office needs probe, residents charge
    May 14, 2003, 12:00 AM Michelle Durand, Daily Journal
    The San Mateo County District Attorney's Office perpetuates a pattern of corruption and favoritism and must be investigated, according to supporters of the mom who continues to wage a discrimination lawsuit against James Fox.
     
  2. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Here is what the San Mateo Daily Journal had in 2003, This is why this site is going to change San Mateo County.

    DA's office needs probe, residents charge

    May 14, 2003, 12:00 AM Michelle Durand, Daily Journal

    The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office perpetuates a pattern of corruption and favoritism and must be investigated, according to supporters of the mom who continues to wage a discrimination lawsuit against James Fox.

    “We will continue to demand justice. His actions clearly stand for hate and corruption,” said Marina Gatto, the 14-year-daughter at the heart of the controversy.

    Gatto’s mother Ramona sued Fox for disclosing to her ex-husband that she was a lesbian which sparked a lengthy and expensive custody battle. A federal lawsuit was dismissed about a year ago but a $3 million state suit is still pending. Meanwhile, Gatto asked State Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office to file criminal charges against Fox and Assistant District Attorney Morley Pitt. That request was denied Nov. 8.

    Despite the setbacks, the Gattos continue their quest for a satisfactory resolution. They’ve often addressed the Board of Supervisors but yesterday’s meeting was the first time they’ve brought advocates to demand accountability.

    “We have had enough. We demand that you take immediate action or explain your actions to the public,” said Leslie Cortez who said she is a member of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community.

    Gatto and Fox became embattled after the district attorney was handed a police report detailing a fight between her current and former girlfriend in 1999, years after she had divorced Timothy Gatto. Because both women were off-duty police officers the report was stamped confidential and given to Fox’s office. With Fox’s approval, Pitt told Timothy Gatto about the report including the fact that his ex-wife was a lesbian. Gatto, who had seen neither Ramona nor Marina in years, then sued for custody of his daughter.

    Fox, who could not be reached for comment on yesterday’s proceedings, has maintained he released the information because he feared for Marina’s safety and not because he was a friend of her father. Gatto, a probation officer, attends the same church as Fox. But Gatto’s lawsuit charges that the actions are homophobic, discriminatory and an invasion of her privacy.

    Although Gatto’s issue touched off the cry for an investigation into Fox’s office, others yesterday say they’ve experienced similar discrimination.

    Susan Navratil said she’s had a comparable experience fighting for custody of her daughter because her ex-husband is also a government employee.

    “There must be an end to this,” she said, charging that the office has a “a deep level of corruption.”

    The speakers acknowledged that the Board of Supervisors cannot order Fox to settle the lawsuit or admit any culpability but asked that they investigate his actions.

    The board has spearheaded examinations into other county facets such as how the public defender’s office has handled juvenile criminal cases. Supervisors could not legally respond to any of the speakers’ comments yesterday because the item was not on the agenda. If they want to discuss the matter they can schedule it for a future meeting.
     
  3. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    These are people who spoke at the Board of Supervisor Meeting that day.
    3.

    ORAL COMMUNICATIONS


    Speakers recognized by the President:


    Michael Gene Stogner, @@@@ San Carlos Avenue #8, San Carlos, 94070


    Susan Navratil, @@@ Barnegat Lane, Redwood Shores, 94065


    Marina Gatto, San Carlos, 94070


    Bob Carter, @@@@ Belmont, San Carlos, 94070


    Jessica Julien


    Mejan Finley


    Bill Christman, San Carlos


    Leslie Cortez, @@@@ Otis Drive, Alameda, 84501


    Marilee Maertz, @@@@ Old Redwood Highway, Pengrove, 94951


    Deb Pedersen


    Beth Teper


    Christina Henderznan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2014
  4. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    What have the Supervisors of San Mateo County done to make sure this is corrected?
     
  5. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This statement was made in public, about the SMC District Attorney's Office, almost 12 years ago.
    I know of people reporting the same since 2000.

    “There must be an end to this,” she said, charging that the office has a “a deep level of corruption.”

    To this day there is no Citizen Oversight, and no Supervisor Oversight.
     
  6. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    On this Story DA's Office Needs Probe.
    I forgot to tell you that the Taxpayers paid around $90,000.00 to settle the case that our District Attorney James P. Fox was sued for.
     
  7. Dan Ullom

    Dan Ullom Administrator Staff Member

    JUST TO PUT THREAD AT TOP
     
  8. Mark De Paula

    Mark De Paula Active Member

    Let's keep this thread aware to all citizens, San Mateo County residents need to know that D.A. Wagstaffe needs to be recalled and removed from office.

    Michael Stogner,thank you for keeping the history of examples of why Wagstaffe must be removed from office.

    Remember, D.A. Wagstaffe has only worked for San Mateo County, and he has held two jobs, Deputy District Attorney and District Attorney.
     
  9. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

  10. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    Michael G. Stogner

    645 Prospect St. 201

    San Carlos, California


    Re: 2nd Request Evidence Code Number assigned to the Sobe Soda Softdrink Bottle on October 9, 2002 by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case.


    Michael P. Murphy County Counsel of San Mateo County

    Hall of Justice and Records

    400 County Center 6th Floor

    Redwood City, California, 94063


    Mr. Murphy,

    This is in response to your letter dated December 12, 2008. Your office was involved it filed a document full of misleading and dishonest statements. Prepared by Carol L Woodward I am confident that you were aware of this, you might not have expected me to be.


    Under the Leadership of Sheriff Don Horsley, Detectives Gary Ramos and Joseph Farmer have Identified this object/weapon in their official police reports and have testified to its existence in the Eddie Rapoza III SC53584A triple murder case. DDA Al Gianni even described the bottle as being broken in the Court. As a concerned citizen and resident of San Mateo County I am asking you to supply me with the Evidence code assigned by the San Mateo County Sheriff Office on the date of October 9, 2002. As you are aware I have spoken publicly to the Board of Supervisors objecting to my Sheriff’s Department under the leadership of Don Horsley declaring the Guilt of people before they ever get to a trial. The Sheriff’s department determined that Mr. Rapoza was guilty the day of the incident. Now we have two deputies and the District Attorney’s office describing this bottle in various conditions. This alleged/fabricated bottle was there excuse for re-entering the ICU room, at 8:30PM, ICU rooms don’t have Sobe Bottles in them. That is why you are unable to supply me with the number, there never was one.


    You might think filing a false response (1/5/2004 Respondent San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Produce Documents) or Police report and committing perjury in our Courts is OK, I don’t.


    I expect honesty and accurate law enforcement reports and testimony in San Mateo County and Our Courts.


    Evidence code number please, the one assigned on October 9, 2002


    Its time the truth comes out, if it never existed just say so.


    Sincerely,



    Michael G. Stogner
     
  11. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    This is an another example of the Supervisors being asked to join me as Citizens if they won't do it as Supervisors. July 22, 2008

     
  12. Michael Stogner

    Michael Stogner Active Member

    From Michelle's article above there is a slight correction, and it makes a big difference.

    "The board has spearheaded examinations into other county facets such as how the public defender’s office has handled juvenile criminal cases."

    San Mateo County doesn't have a Public Defender Office, we have a Private Defender Program.
     

Share This Page