So Munks and the deputy "left the area for a while?" If so, what did they do/say when they came back?

2007?

Shall we re-litigate Whitewater and the Vince Foster suicide, also?

Have a House Select hearing on why Condi Rice ignored the report "Bin Laden Determnined To Attack in US"?

Sounds like Code Pink, stalking candidates about issues from a decade ago. Way to run a campaign, Michael. You can't tell your fringe libertarian buddies to lay off so you don't end up looking like them?

Let's up our stake in Alcoa, folks.

Mr. Barnes:

The incident was not a decade ago; it was seven years ago. The Operation Dollhouse issue is fair game because:

1) Munks gave one statement about the incident and then refused to answer ANY reporters' questions. That's not being transparent.

2) The San Mateo County Sheriff's office is gearing up to deal with human trafficking. Given that the prostitutes in the Las Vegas brothel were underaged and most likely trafficked, this is INDEED a pertinent issue. Also, men who have been caught with underaged prostitutes have gone to jail in San Mateo County.

3) Deputy Sheriff Juan Lopez is running against Munks for Sheriff, so again, this issue WILL come up again. County administrators tried to sweep it under the rug.

Around the country, when law enforcement or government officials are caught going into brothels or hire prostitutes, they are either pushed out or resign. Eliot Spitzer, for example, had to step down.

For the head law enforcement officer in San Mateo County to not be forthcoming about this issue and THEN get angry when the issue is raised, and then suggest that the questioner shouldn't even be there -- that is NOT a professional way of handing things.

Mr. DePaula he was startled and offered to discuss this with the deputy elsewhere so they both left that area for awhile.

These are the two people who left the area. not as described by then what.

Sheriff Greg Munks and I are fine I asked him to resign in my May 14, 2007 Certified Letter. everyone knows that.

This is a different subject.

Oh, *only* seven years ago, my bad! Given that this seems to be all Michael Stogner talks about, I thought Stogner was running against Munks!

You can understand my mixup.

But it makes one wonder why this is the key political campaign issue for a supervisor candidate (not sheriff candidate) from the fringe libertarian party....

Greg Munks and Carlos Bolanos have never had to answer for being customers of human trafficking in Nevada just seven years ago.

Because of corruption in San Mateo County, in large part due to the intervention of Steven Wagstaffe, so-called district attorney, there is been no accountability for these illegal acts.

Now Munks is supposed to be leading the charge against the human trafficking he was a customer of, and his supporters are saying don't bring it up, it's not relevant. If someone brings it up at a public meeting, Munks has one of his deputies drag them outside to question whether they should be there.

What a farce.

The FBI raided a brothel in Las Vegas because surveillance showed likely sex slavery going on. When they caught San Mateo County Sheriff in the raid they let him go without charge. It seems law enforcement lives under different rules. Munks said he thought he was in a legit place for massage. Nobody believes that. News reports said women were taken out of the place wrapped in blankets. The legit place across the street has a 30 foot sign saying "MASSAGE". The raid site has no sign and has bars on the windows. Bars likely for keeping slaves in, not intruders out. Asian/Latin women are lured to come here expecting respectable jobs in wealthy family homes. Then they are threatened with disgrace and jail/deportation for illegal entry. If they resist, they are beaten. A sheriff who patronizes such a place forfeits voter respect and trust. In June 3rd election Deputy Sheriff Juan Lopez is registered as a write-in candidate. Lopez' registration shows enormous integrity and courage. Now we can get rid of Munks by just writing in Juan Lopez. District Attorney Wagstaffe email told Munks his behavior would have no effect on his job "To the people that matter." Seems Wagstaffe thinks we ordinary voters do not matter. If Wagstaffe had an opponent we'd get right of him too. Wagstaffe shows himself unfit. He likely will not last through his term.

Mr. Barnes asks, "But it makes one wonder why this is the key political campaign issue for a supervisor candidate (not sheriff candidate) from the fringe libertarian party…."

This is an American issue, and for the record and I know it doesn't matter but both Mark DePaula and Greg Munks are Republicans. You will find out it is an issue for 2 Supervisor Candidates and 1 Sheriff Candidate so far.

This issue is about the abuse of power.

Given that voters here obviously still have questions about Munks' past and how Juan Lopez will shake up things if elected, the Almanac would be doing them an important service by interviewing both men.

The San Mateo Daily Journal has been doing a series of interviews with many of the candidates who are running.

Why do I suspect that IF, and that's a big if, Munks agreed to be interviewed by the Almanac that Operation Dollhouse would be off limits for questioning as a requirement for him to be interviewed?

Munks is just another San Mateo County corruptocrat who, along with our DA should be thrown out of office. We'll see if the sheeple of San Mateo County have it in them to write in Lopez's name. I certainly will, but I doubt most of the rest of the electorate will.

"Given that voters here obviously still have questions about Munks' past "

Really? Besides a couple of anonymous libertarian type fringies that have been attacking him for SEVEN years, what questions do AVERAGE voters have for him?

You know, the voters that just re-elected him FOUR YEARS AGO? (answer: they don't have a lot of questions, they've moved on and since re-elected him, it's just the fringe that live in the past.)

So, Michael, since you are not running for the office of sheriff, and no one is running against Munks last time or this time, yet Stogner's running a campaign that focuses on an event 7 years ago, after the sheriff was re-elected only 4 years ago.... owwwww!

My head hurts trying to figure out what this smokescreen is all about!! Really - what are you guys hiding?

"voters here obviously still have questions about Munks' past" NO. They do not. They re-elected him 4 years ago and have moved on. Glad things are so great in SMC that our fringies can spend their time reaching back! You go, boys!

Yee-haw!

Mr Barnes:

yes the sheeple of San Mateo county reelected our pervert sheriff. HE RAN UNOPPOSED!!! Duh. There was no write in candidate available. He COULDN'T LOSE!! Duh, again. He could have received 10 votes and still been reelected. Seriously, are you that stupid or do you just think we are?

Mnelo Voter: "HE RAN UNOPPOSED!!! Duh. There was no write in candidate available. He COULDN'T LOSE!! Duh, again. .... Seriously, are you that stupid or do you just think we are?"

I'll go with the latter, thank you. So kind of you to ask.

I am well aware he ran unopposed (it was in all the papers, thank you, and easily searchable,) as he is again running unopposed, with only a relatively unknown write-in candidate.

So.... that's some **really great** organizing on the part of the looney fringe that opposes him! You really lined up the candidates! A whole slate of choices!

Not.

Instead, sit back and throw (mostly) anonymous potshots at a guy, when the voters have already essentially litigated it with a yawn. Stay classy, Menlo Voter.

Why didn't YOU, or Michael Stogner, or Jack Hickey find someone to declare and run? Or run yourself if he is so evil? I mean, hasn't Jack ran for every other conceivable office?!???

Besides the obvious point already made that Michael Stogner's whole campaign is based around it, why didn't he just run for sheriff himself?!?

"Duh, again. .... Seriously, are you that stupid or do you just think we are?"

Nice friends ya got, Michael.

Sure you want to hang in that corner of the internet, with those types? Look what happened to Jack and his elections.

Mr. Barnes this thread is about the statement Sheriff Greg Munks made to his deputy at a public meeting.

"I don't think this guy belongs here."

Are you ok with our Sheriff making that statement, to a citizen who had even right to be at that meeting?

You have to be kidding me?? The comments condoning this behavior or questioning the statute of limitations??? [Portion removed. Please avoid personal attacks.}You want a person, who is responsible for enforcing the laws of the county to be the main person?? [Portion removed.] Man, thank goodness I don't live in your county. This is not a political issue!! It matters not, about the person's party affilation, this is about being a human being with character!!! Bring it to the voters, and let them decide!!!

So Mr Barnes, do you think it's ok that Munks was caught in an illegal house of prostitution? A house of prostitution featuring underage girls. Really? And you tell me to stay classy.

Meanwhile, over in Santa Clara County, where there is a challenger to the current Sheriff Smith on the ballot, both candidates have provided video statements about them and their stances. Still waiting for some reporter in San Mateo to interview both Munks and Juan Lopez.

Web Link

Mr Stogner: "Mr. Barnes this thread is about the statement Sheriff Greg Munks made..."

Yet you don't seem to chastise your friends from the fringe that CONSTANTLY bring it up, do you? I did not bring up the event from 7 years ago, that the SMC voters gave a collective yawn over, when re-electing the sheriff. It's always your buddies, that apparently promised to support you with some minor third party endorsement to entice you to run. It's your campaign theme, they are the echo chamber, so you love it.

Since the sheriff is your main campaign theme, I will reiterate:

"Why didn't YOU, or Michael Stogner, or Jack Hickey find someone to declare and run (for sheriff)? Or run yourself if (the sheriff) is so evil? I mean, hasn't Jack ran for every other conceivable office?!???

Besides the obvious point already made that Michael Stogner's whole campaign is based around it, why didn't he just run for sheriff himself?!? "

Mr. Barnes:

Not sure why the subject of Munks and the brothel has you so bent out of shape, but you do realize that the deadline for filing for the Sheriff's position for this election has long since passed, do you not?

Mr. Barnes, I'm not sure why you are so upset that some people in San Mateo County share my desire to substantially reduce corruption, why is that such a threatening subject.

Today's Front page story in the PA Daily Post by Angela Ruggiero "Hooker issue dogs Sheriff"

Article confirms Sheriff Munks went to Capt. Mark Wyss "This guy probably doesn't belong here."
The post contacted the Sheriff Office for a comment. Sheriff Munks not available.
Capt. Mark Wyss confirms that he spoke to Mark DePaula that morning at that event.

I forgot, from the same article,

Mark DePaula "If an individual who holds the highest law enforcement position in the county, reacts the way he did when I ask them that question discreetly." He shouldn't be in office.


DePaula will ask Munks for his resignation.

Where is the Almanac on this issue? Very surprising and deafening silence.
Editor's note: We are checking with the people involved.

Some of us don't live in the Bay Area and nowhere near a Palo Alto Daily Post box. I know they don't post articles online, but can someone post what the article says on this thread?

Editor's note: You can make references to it, or link to it, but posting the entire article is a copyright violation.

Thanks. I just called the Palo Alto Daily Post and they emailed me the story. Very good one, I might add.

This nugget from the Post story is very interesting: " In 2009, when a Post reporter, during an interview about other law enforcement subjects, asked about the incident, he clammed up and refused to talk about it."

Surely the head Sheriff who is supposedly spearheading some kind of push to get rid of human trafficking in San Mateo County needs to address the Dollhouse incident head on? His skittish behavior makes it look like he has a lot to hide.

Mr Stogner: "Mr. Barnes, I'm not sure why you are so upset that some people in San Mateo County..."

Not upset at all, but appreciate your concern. Just curious. And have asked repeatedly: if the sheriff is your main campaign theme, aren't you running for the wrong office?

"Not sure why the subject of Munks ... has you so bent out of shape..."

It doesn't, thank you. I wasn't the one who has "(portions of several posts removed)", nor suggested other posters are "stupid" (stay classy, Menlo Voter, or, alternatively, go back and spend a more thorough time reading my posts.)

Munks was re-elected without opposition 4 years ago. He is running unopposed this year (yeah, go ahead and pin your hopes on a write in, that's like pinning your hopes on the Libertarian Party!)

Now we have a newbie running for supervisor instead of sheriff, with his (couple of) fringe minions apparently only posting vociferously on this event from the past. They can't help themselves from including it in what looks like every semi-related thread in the last couple weeks. They even headlined the event in this thread in the 2nd sentence (despite Michael's accusation that I brought it up; didn't they, Michael?)

I just find it curious:

"Why didn't YOU, or Michael Stogner, or Jack Hickey find someone to declare and run (for sheriff)? Or run yourself if (the sheriff) is so evil? I mean, hasn't Jack ran for every other conceivable office?!???

Besides the obvious point already made that Michael Stogner's whole campaign is based around it, why didn't he just run for sheriff himself?!? "

You may, of course continue to ignore these questions, perhaps imply that I condoned something that I haven't, assign false emotions ("upset" or "bent out of shape",) impugn me as "stupid", or some new obfuscation you choose.

Or just tell us the answers, Mr. Stogner.

Is this what voters can expect from Mr. Stogner in the unlikely event he is elected?

Sounds rather disheartening for someone who is supposed to be a libertarian breath of fresh air.

Just my opinion, boys. No need to go batstuff crazy on me.

So Mr Barnes, you still haven't answered the question: So Mr Barnes, do you think it's ok that Munks was caught in an illegal house of prostitution? A house of prostitution featuring underage girls.

Apparently you are one of those voters that yawned about it. You're a real class act.

Mr Barnes:

Way to go in your efforts to change the subject. Have you, by the way, read the front page story "Hooker Issue Dogs Sheriff" today in the Palo Alto Daily Post?

Clearly the editors thought the fact that Munks refuses to answer questions from the public on this matter is of pertinent issue to the voters. Indeed, the first paragraph reads,

"Mark De Paula, who is running for San Mateo County Supervisor, said he keeps hearing the same questions as he goes door to door seeking votes - was Sheriff Greg Munks ever exonerated when he was caught in a prostitution sting in Las Vegas seven years ago?"

Then the paper details the incident not just between Munks and De Paula but also between a woman at a "Stop Human Trafficking press conference who asked Munks if he should be involved in the conference, as human trafficking victims are so often forced into prostitution. The paper also recalls a 2009 incident when Munks refused to answer THEIR question about the Las Vegas incident.

You can attack Stogner all you want, but it's clear from the story that MANY others out there want the answers and have NOT moved on.

This is nothing to do with Stogner and everything to do with getting the truth.

The Palo Alto Daily Post felt it was newsworthy enough to put on their front page. Mr. Stogner is not even in this story.

@outoftowner: I'm not attacking Mr. Stogner. I am merely asking him questions about his main campaign emphasis as it crosses with the multple, mostly anonymous attacks posted here and elsewhere, as well as why, with his main campaign points being about the sheriff, why he or another isn't running against the sheriff? For two consecutive elections?

One notes that Mr. Stogner has not been forthcoming in answering the questions posted multiple times - the same point his libertarian friends make... ("Besides the obvious point already made that Michael Stogner's whole campaign is based around it, why didn't he just run for sheriff himself?!?") That does not bode well for Mr. Stogner showing us he is worthy of the job - either the sheriff or supervisor. A case of the pot calling the kettle... (you get the picture.)

@menlovoter "So Mr Barnes, you still haven't answered the question..." And Menlo Voter has not answered my questions either, other than with his "are you that stupid" comments. No, I don't think it's "okay." Now, for you and your other libertarian friends who believe that government should get out of 'victimless' crimes, I'll let you go ahead and argue that salient point. Maybe an appropriate question might be something like:

"if Menlo Voter and Sheriff Munks were in a different Nevada county, not directly in Las Vegas, therefore in a legal brothel, would Menlo Voter create such a fuss?" Remember Menlo Voter, to answer in your consistent tone, the "real class act" you are so in favor of!

In the meantime, Menlo Voter, riddle me this:

"Why didn't YOU (Menlo Voter,) or Michael Stogner, or Jack Hickey find someone to declare and run? Or run yourself if he is so evil? I mean, hasn't Jack ran for every other conceivable office?!???"

I asked you directly that before and you ignored it, so I'll default to your own words: "So (Menlo Voter) you still haven't answered the question... You're a real class act."

Since it may be awhile (forever?) for Michael Stogner to answer the questions about his campaign's main point of attack, I'll look forward to Menlo Voter's response.

Again, just my opinion and an honest question of the candidate, boys. No need to go bats crazy on me.

Again.

oops! too late....

;)

Mr. Barnes:

This is not about Mr. Stogner, or Menlo Voter or Mr. Hickey. This is about an incident involving Mr. Munks and his refusal to respond to Mr. De Paula that was reported today on the front page of the Palo Alto Daily Post.

You haven't answered my question: Have you read the front page story in the Palo Alto Daily Post today?


Mr. Wagstaffe must be livid about the Post piece today, given that he wrote such strong emails of support "To those who matter" to Munks and Bolanos.

@OutofTowners: Mr. Stogner is a candidate, a candidate whose apparent main campaign point is to continue the attack on the sheriff over an event that happened 7 years ago, well before the sheriff's last unopposed election (and reelected,) and this election where no one is opposing him.

Given Mr. Stogner's campaign emphasis, and his willingness to come on multiple threads here (and I assume elsewhere) it is a fair question to ask Mr. Stogner about his campaign messages.

Hence: "Besides the obvious point already made that Michael Stogner's whole campaign is based around it, why didn't he just run for sheriff himself?!?"

Is Mr. Stogner's campaign going to be a stalking horse for attacking the campaign of the sheriff, even though Mr. Stogner is allegedly running for supervisor?

re: "You haven't answered my question: Have you read the front page story in the Palo Alto Daily Post today?" No. I don't get that out of county publication delivered up here, and haven't read the link yet.

My question for you: since Mr. Stogner is using the issue as his main campaign talking point (willingly joining all the threads attacking the sheriff) isn't it fair for San Mateo County voters to know why? He certainly begs the question based on his near constant participation (apparently only interrupted when he is asked about it!)

Why isn't he running for sheriff if that is his main issue?

Are these simple questions too difficult for Mr. Stogner to answer?

This story appeared on the FRONT PAGE of the Palo Alto Daily Post today. There is NOTHING in the story that pertains to Mr. Stogner. Nothing! It is about an interaction between Munks and DePaula. This is what this thread is about.

My gosh, I don't know who you are but you do seem to be knee-deep in some kind of odd, frenzied obsession with Mr. Stogner.

I am not going to comment any more here because the conversation is going around in circles and has degenerated into a childish "I know-you-are-but-what-am-I" kind of thing.

See ya!

More despicable behavior by a despicable sheriff.

Is the Sep. Juan Lopez running against Munks the same on whose brother is also with the S.O?

Mr. Barnes asks several times "Why isn't he running for sheriff if that is his main issue?" He is talking about me.

Its quite simple and I think he already knows this, if he just goes to my website StognerforSupervisor2014
He would see that the Sheriff is not my main issue at all. But we all know that is not what this is about.

To run for Sheriff:
I think it might be important to at least have some Law Enforcement background. I'm not sure if Mr. Barnes agrees with that or not.

According to the DP article today Mark DePaula will be asking the Sheriff to resign and if he does that will make 2 candidates for Supervisor who have done that, I did it May 14, 2007 and that is another difference between myself and my opponent on this one issue.

Thank you, Mr Stogner. I will look at your site and ascertain your main campaign themes.

You can understand my confusion. In the short time I've read some of these threads, it seems like virtually all your comments were pertaining to the one issue of the sheriffs race.

For the others, who seem quite combative, I will leave my remaining questions open to them (MenloVoter, etc..)

You're screaming awfully loud on a mostly anonymous site; why haven't you been more active in the last two elections in recruiting candidates to run for sheriff if you're so adamant? Or is it easier just to use an anonymous forum to hurls attacks and accusations?

Or run for office themselves. I'm sure one of the above combative types would get quite the ringing endorsement from the APD.

Ms. OutOfTowner: this thread wasn't about the article form yesterday. I'm sorry you missed that, or, rather, nice try deflecting it. I find it funny that when asked a direct question, you resorted to running off "because the conversation is going around in circles and has degenerated into a childish 'I know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kind of thing." Sorry the question scared you.

I'll miss you.


Hmmm: I don't know the answer to that question. Sorry. Does Mr Lopez also have a website?

Mr. Barnes I do understand some of the confusion I think I am the only candidate asking people to consider another Supervisor and a Sheriff in the same election. I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think it was important for the County.

I look forward to answering all of your questions if you ask.

Mr Barnes:

yes I'm anonymous, but you have no idea what I've done to try to defeat or remove our corrupt Sherriff or our corrupt DA or any of the other corruptocrats that populate San Mateo County. what have you done? Or do you think it's just fine that we're the most corrupt county in the state? don't answer your previous comments say all we need to know.

So you don't think it's ok that Munks was in an illegal bordello featuring under age women. Good. Then why do you think some folks are upset that the scumbag is still holding office?

To answer your question, no, I would have had no problem had Munks been in a legal brothel. The point being LEGAL is the operative word. As a law enforcement official he has a duty to not only uphold the law but abide by it. Especially as it relates to the abuse of under age victims. Unless and until society decides it's ok to abuse children (not likely don't you think?), Munks is still a scumbag that was caught in an illegal bordello featuring under age victims and has no business holding the office of Sherriff.

You keep it classy Mr Barnes if you possibly can.

Menlo Voter has said it better than I can...and apparently anyone who shares this view is part of "the fringe" according to Mr. Barnes.

But there is also another issue here. What Munks did in the first place is bad enough, but just days ago he had a sheriff's deputy question the legitimacy of Mr. DePaula being at a public meeting, with a name tag registration visible, because DePaula asked Munks about this incident. Mr. DePaula had to leave the meeting for questioning by the deputy.

This is, at best, very heavy handed, and at worst, illegal. If someone believes this recent behavior by Munks is wrong, is he or she part of the "fringe" also, Mr. Barnes?

Mr. Stogner would you agree that San Mateo County is a fairly safe county? It is. In comparison to our neighboring counties and the high crime that I hear about on the news every night, San Mateo county's crime seems to be substantially lower. I am surprised to hear that you are running for a san mateo county seat and you seem to have no respect for one of the elected officials who's job it is to make sure our county (your county) remains safe. One thing I do not care for is candidates who try and tear down other candidates. Mr Stogner, with all due respect, your focus should be on what you can contribute to this county as a board of supervisor. Sharing with the public all of the knowledge and experience you have, that you can add to the current board would be nice to hear. Tell us what are we going to gain by voting for you? What are your plans to for the future of our county? How are you going to bring the community together on issues we all care about? If you focused your conversations on those topics.. you just might get elected. good luck to you.

my two cents easy to answers to those questions at StognerforSupervisor2014

This thread is about abuse of power which happens to be a subject I am familiar with as a victims advocate.

Are you alright with what happened Monday?

Maybe those of us who are still unhappy that Munks is in office should show up at anti-trafficking and other public events he attends and question him as Mr. DePaula did. Maybe we can all ask him, one after another, and see how he reacts. Would a deputy try to then question us? I don't know, but but legally we don't have to answer, nor go anywhere with them.

Sorry: the previious response should have been posted under the School Superintendent Anne Campbell thread

Mercury News finally writes about and interviews Juan Lopez's run for Sheriff today.


Web Link

The other write-in candidate is San Mateo County sheriff's Deputy Juan Lopez, who is challenging his boss, Sheriff Greg Munks.

Lopez said his election effort isn't about trying to bash Munks but about "taking the office into a different direction."

"I'm pretty much trying to run a clean campaign," said Lopez, a Redwood City resident and 26-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office.

____

I am sure Mr. Lopez will run a clean campaign, but he needs to be more hard-hitting and vocal in his criticisms of the Munks regine.

One can run a clean campaign and at the same time point out the flaws in the other candidate in a way that can enlighten and inspire the public.

There is an organization called "ActForUS" that has posted about Lopez's campaign. It DOES mention the Munks brothel incident here: Web Link

A number of citizens have said that Mr. Lopez needs to get a better website up there about his campaign. Hope he can make this happen.

Menlo Voter: "yes I'm anonymous, but you have no idea what I've done to try to defeat or remove our corrupt Sherriff or our corrupt DA or any of the other corruptocrats that populate San Mateo County. "

You are correct, ma'am, I don't have any idea what you have done. Results speak for themselves: Munks is running virtually unopposed in his second straight election, so I will assume the answer may be "not much". Hence the questions above that you have not answered - what have you/Hickey/etc.. done? Other than anonymous postings and rants...

"To answer your question, no, I would have had no problem had Munks been in a legal brothel." Nor I. That would be between him and his God (and his family.) For what it's worth, my God is into forgiveness and redemption - I can't speak to the qualities of your beliefs.

More to the point, SMC re-elected him 4 years ago. They will again. The voters are possibly also willing to allow redemption (see the crime stats post above) or they are as you call them: "sheeple".

Let's talk action with my next post.

(completely OT: you'll love the verification code I just had to type, I swear it's - "1PERv")

Menlo Voter: "yes I'm anonymous, but you have no idea what I've done to try to defeat or remove our corrupt Sherriff or our corrupt DA or any of the other corruptocrats that populate San Mateo County. " As I said, yes, I have no idea.

Rather than anonymous rants - why not help Mr Lopez?

Let's meet up and do a voter registration drive that would DEFINITELY help Mr. Lopez! I suggest we spend a weekend at a busy intersection that would most help Mr. Lopez.

Corner of 5th and Middlefield, Redwood City.

We can register thousands.

Then join me the next weekend in EPA, and after that in Belle Haven. One assumes that strong Latino populations would be a natural constituency for Mr. Lopez.

You, me, Hickey, etc.. We'll have a great time bonding.

It's all about making San Mateo County stronger, isn't it?

We have a lot of areas in common, I'm sure. (seriously, we do.)

Mr Barnes:

do we want to make San Mateo County "stronger" or less corrupt? I don't think they're the same thing. It's not a matter of registering more voters it's a matter of educating voters that their elected officials are corrupt and helping them understand how that could be changed and how important it is to them to do so. I don't think the average voter understands the level of corruption in this county and how it can and does effect them.

Menlo Voter, very well said.

"I don't think the average voter understands the level of corruption in this county and how it can and does effect them."

@Menlo Voter: "It's a matter of educating voters that their elected official are corrupt".

It would seem to me Mr. Barnes suggestion IS the best way to educate what you deem "the average voter" in San Mateo County since your post implies most of us are not as erudite as you or Mr. Stogner...the perennial candidate.

There are several articles back in 2007 still on the internet posted by Mr. Stogner regarding the Munks matter including his determination to start a referendum to have him recalled. What happened to Mr. Stogner's efforts to get the needed signatures for the recall?

Nothing.

Why?

Perhaps Mr. Munks exercised poor judgement but the majority of voters (excluding you and perhaps a handful of others) are more concerned with the results of their elected officials and not what happens in their private life. That was certainly evident with the Clinton impeachment hearings 10 years earlier.

If Mr. Stogner expects perfection from elected officials and once again feels the Sheriff Munks peccadillo from 2007 should be an issue in 2014, then perhaps the voters should take into consideration Mr. Stogner's own lack of judgement particularly with regards to managing his own finances (Open Access-San Mateo County). Should Mr. Stogner be in a position of trust as a San Mateo County supervisor and in a position to decide how to spend San Mateo County tax dollars given his own financial mismanagement from over seven years ago?

If Mr. Stogner is truly vested in civic affairs and becoming an elected official, he would be well advised to concentrate on inpressing the voters with his own accomplishments (none of which I can find on his website) rather than railing on the shortcomings of those already in elected office.

Thomas:

Sherriff Munks being caught in a underage bordello is a "peccadillo?" Seriously? What part of UNDERAGE don't you understand? This is our head of law enforcement and you don't think that's a problem? It's a private matter? At least Clinton lied about an affair with an ADULT.

You are a perfect example of why people like Munks get elected and reelected. His breaking of the law victimizing minor children is viewed as "peccadillo." Truly disgusting.

The ardent supporters of Greg Munks, Thomas (Sharon Heights) and Mr. Barnes (Sharon Heights)...

Greg Munks is a member of the Sharon Heights country club.

Aha!

"Thomas"says this was done in his "private life. " What Munks and Bolonos did was against the law. The FBI was raiding the place because the girls were underage and the men at the brothel including Munks and Bolanos were breaking the law.

Eliot Spitzer prosecuted people who ran prostitution rings as Attorney General yet he was breaking the same laws as the men he was prosecuting by hiring prostitutes from the ring. He also transported a prostitute against state lines.At least he stepped down.


in San Mateo County, Munks is in charge of the push against human trafficking. Yet he spoke at a "Stop Human Tafficking" conference about the need to eradicate it! The hypocrisy was so blatant that a woman at the conference stood up and asked Munks how he could be in charge of the human trafficking campaign when so many prostitutes are trafficked?

Munks was not man enough to respond. He clammed up when the Palo Alto Daily Post asked him about Operation Dollhouse he clammed up. If he has done nothing wrong, then why won't he talk about it?

You can't have a Sheriff who breaks the law and then arrests others who break the same laws as he did. That's what it comes down to.

Someone brought up Spitzer.... what about the family values man David Vitter? Prostitution while wearing diapers. Reelected over and over by the GOP.

Tell me again why signing up voters is a bad thing? It will help your man Lopez.

Here's the difference:

Vitter was NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Spitzer prosecuted men who frequented the same prostitution ring he frequented.

Munks is the SHERIFF and his office arrests men who hire underaged prostitutes. He broke the same laws as the men he attested.

Vitter hired a prostitute but his job wasnt busting other men who did.

Spitzer andy ms busted men who hired prostitutes.

I have to ask: Is that you , Sheriff Munks? Is that you Carlos Bolanis? This subject sure is agitating you.

Awww, you gals have jumped the shark. Defending US Senator David Vitter who ran his first campaign as the family values lawyer against an adulterer, only to commit adultery himself in a house of prostitution, just to attack Munks and Spitzer. Think about whom you are defending. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Anonymous posters accusing others of being country club buddies with Munks. Accusing posters of being Munks or Carlos Bolanis, whomever he is. Going all the way back to Clinton. And the tone: "are you that stupid"

The topper? "This subject sure is agitating you."

Oh, my. One thinks youshould probably go back and read your own contributions.

That said, I love Menlo Voter's response to "Let's meet up and do a voter registration drive that would DEFINITELY help Mr. Lopez!"

Answered by: " I don't think the average voter understands..." Waa, waaa, they just don't get it! Or are you saying you won't register voters in predominately Hispanic communities (to support Mr. Lopez) because they are not as smart as you think you are? Well, okay then. Can't argue that (or actually: will not waste my breather to argue that!)

Offer is still open: let's get out the vote for Lopez, starting with registration drives in RC, EPA and east MP.

Voting - the lifeblood of democracy, the surest way to fight corruption. Let's get the biggest bang for the buck for Lopez, registering voters in the traditionally under-served communities. With the strong Hispanic population of those communities, a registration drive will well serve both Lopez and the county for decades to come! How can Menlo Voter be against that? I can't imagine a single reason!

Let's go! Who's with me?

uh-oh, where did all my conservative and libertarian friends go? Michael? Can you explain?

Menlo Voter: "but you have no idea what I've done to try to defeat or remove our corrupt Sherriff or our corrupt DA or any of the other corruptocrats that populate San Mateo County. "

You are correct, ma'am, I STILL don't have any idea what you have done. You haven't shared that answer yet, so I'll ask yet again - what HAVE you done? You obviously never got anyone to run against Munks in the last election or this one. What HAVE you done?

Let's make a difference for the county. I'm waiting to go register voters with you.

Be real fun.

Mr Barnes:

You don't know what I've done and you probably never will. I don't need to share it with you or in this forum. Suffice it to say I have done quite a bit. No, I couldn't get anyone to run against Munks last time around. I tried, but those that were interested didn't have the law enforcement background. Now we have someone with the background running as a write in. I will write him in and I hope others will too.

I don't believe in "get out the vote" drives. If someone is interested in voting they will register and vote. I'm not going to beg them to vote. In addition, if they don't have sufficient interest to register how likely is it they have an interest in what is happening politically? How likely are they to educate themselves on issues they have no intention of casting a vote for or against?

It's very interesting you seem to have no problem with the corruption in this county, especially that of Munks. You know, it was "yawn." So your "get out the vote" offer rings hollow.

Wow.

"I swear I've done a lot but I can't tell you or anyone else" Uh, okay, I believe every anonymous poster who makes ridiculous claims.

"I want Lopez but won't work to get him elected by registering voters" Yeah, there's that 'effort' thing, isn't there?

Anything else I miss?

Oh yeah: Despite my never claiming it - "you seem to have no problem with the corruption in this county." Nice try. Well, not really.

"So your "get out the vote" offer rings hollow." Except YOU are the one who won't join us, in fighting corruption by helping get voters for Lopez.

Okey-dokie. Got it.

Go away.

Tell you what Mr Barnes, if that is really your name, you give me a time and a place you'll be registering voters and I'll show up. And IF you're actually there, I'll stay and help. How's that sound? If you really are concerned as you say you are about San Mateo County corruption I'm sure you'll be there.

Great! You speak Spanish?

"If you really are concerned as you say you are about San Mateo County corruption"

I don't beleive I've made a declaration on this thread either way (iirc.) You're the one hopping mad, bragging you've done lots to fight corruption but unable to elucidate.

Seems odd.

I would think this would be a positive action you would be jumping up and down about. But glad to drag you out, either way. Be fun!

Spare me your sarcasm Mr Barnes. Is that really your name? Seems strange one would complain about anonymity if isn't. Date, time and location. Sorry, my Spanish skills are pretty limited. Shouldn't need them anyway. Anyone that is eligible to vote has to be able to speak English. Part of the citizenship test.

I have a feeling "Mr Barnes" won't be making good on his offer. Probably too busy hanging out at the country club with Munks.

Thomas asks a great question, He's talking about my 5/14/2007 certified letter to Sheriff Greg Munks, where I asked him and the UnderSheriff to resign, and if they didn't t would take it to the voters for recall.

What happened to Mr. Stogner's efforts to get the needed signatures for the recall?

Nothing.

Why?

When I wrote that letter, I did not know of Steve Wagstaffe's and James P. Fox's e-mails of support, and I was confident that every Supervisor of San Mateo County would have been sending letters making the same request. Not one did. and I couldn't even get one Supervisor to think it should be investigated
At the time it would have taken about 40,000 qualified signatures.

That 40,000 vs 12,000 to Recall Supervisor Don Horsley for breaking his political campaign which was quietly announced on December 26, 2102 made all the difference. I asked Don Horsley to reconsider his terrible decision to break his promise I gave him 30 days to do that, He did, and I thanked him for that.

I hope that answers the question.

"Anyone that is eligible to vote has to be able to speak English."

Even with with Reagan's blanket amnesty? How many millions got in with that?

And they had/have had kids, who automatically are citizens. What a great man Mr. Reagan was!

With your obvious empathy, Menlo Voter, I'm sure you understand how important it is to make voters comfortable and deal with them in the language that they are most skilled.

Mr. Lopez is going to LOVE YOU for reaching out to what should be a natural constituency for him! And pay so many benefits for so many future elections! I can't wait!

I have been pleasantly surprised at how compassionate you've turned out to be, and so passionate about strengthening our county by getting all citizens involved!

Just as I suspected, "mr barnes" is nothing more than a troll. No date, time or location for me to go help him register voters. Go away "mr barnes" or whatever your name is.

Pot, meet kettle...

While waiting for the exhaustive list of ALL THE THINGS Menlo Voter claims he has done to combat corruption in this county (still waiting) I've looked for already organized registration drives in place and have yet to find them. Perhaps that's just a fact that midterms don't drive a lot of interest, but will keep looking before I organize one for us. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Menlo Voter's patience needs some work.

After all, it's only been 20 HOURS since she graciously accepted the invitation.

"Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
20 hours ago

Tell you what Mr Barnes, if that is really your name, you give me a time and a place you'll be registering voters and I'll show up."

Patience, lassie, we'll have a great time. In the meantime, go buy some flowers for your mother.

It's a lovely day!

To "Mr. Barnes" :

Name the time and place.

barnes you made it sound as if you were right on top of voter registration drives in the county. No? We'll wait and see what you come up with. I won't be holding my breath. Where's your list of things you've done? If you're going to try to tear me down for not listing mine the least you can do is show us all what great man you are by listing yours. Unless, of course, you don't actually care about corruption in our county. Which is what I suspect. By the way I'm a lad, not a lassie.

My apologies, laddie, one couldn't tell.

"Where's your list of things you've done? If you're going to try to tear me down for not listing mine the least you can do is show us all what great man you are by listing yours."

Never claimed to be great, nor many of the other qualities or thoughts you continually assign to me - once again you try to apply a false frame to others that may or may not exist. Been around long enough to know the truth. To not make absurd claims about my achievements that one can't back up, such as:

"You don't know what I've done and you probably never will.... Suffice it to say I have done quite a bit."

and

"...you have no idea what I've done to try to defeat or remove our corrupt Sherriff or our corrupt DA or any of the other corruptocrats that populate San Mateo County."

If you're angry because you have been called on your egregious claims, try to deal with it without lashing out at others. You got caught, accept it and move on. You'll live longer, Mr. Menlo Voter.

Now, I'll continue to look this week for existing registration events we can piggyback on and work together. If I can't find any, I'll start one up, and we'll work it together.

Mr./Ms. Thank You & Don't hold your breath - by your response, am I to take it you both are joining us?

"Mr.Barnes":

Name the time and place.

This has gotten way off topic.

As a longtime San Mateo County voter, I would simply like the sheriff to address the allegations beyond his one brief statement about how he and the undersheriff thought they were going to a legitimate business. If Sheriff Munks answered the question posed to him at College of San Mateo by the supervisorial candidate — was he exonerated by the FBI? — that would be at least a start.

I am obviously not alone in having lingering questions concerning conduct of the top lawman in the county. Sheriff Munks has yet to adequately address the issue and his refusal to entertain questions on the matter makes it look like he has something to hide.

This issue will not go away until the sheriff answers some questions. Right now it looks like he is hiding.

barnes:

I haven't "gotten caught" at anything. You still don't know what I've done or not. You'd like to "apply your false frame to others" but you can't. You and I don't know each other. So, you don't know anything about me other than what your little imagination can dream up. Let me know when you come up with a time and place for registering voters.

Sheriff Greg Munks getting agitated at a public meeting and abusing his power/authority is a red flag warning sign for the Supervisors. It always goes back to the Supervisors We the People can thank, Mark Church, Jerry Hill, Rich Gordon, Rose Gibson, and Adrienne Tissier for doing NOTHING to solve this 7 years ago.

This thread is about the well being of our Sheriff, is he thinking clearly. He acted out at that meeting.

He has had 7 years to prepare for these questions?

I have asked them to look into this.

It would seem to me that this discussion is raising a great deal of banter between some very passionate community members. My first thought is that the FBI is not in the business of "exonerating" anyone. They are not tasked with that authority, I believe only the Judicial System addresses that within our legal system. Thus, the question posed by Mr. DePaula does not make any sense. Next, as a community member, I would question the motive behind Mr. DePaula's question. As a candidate for Supervisor, how does this question speak to his qualifications for the job of County Supervisor or demonstrate how the question would demonstrate the lack of qualifications or the inefficiencies or poor performance by his opponent? If he were running for Sheriff, then I would agree that the question would be appropriate for one candidate to pose to another. However, as a candidate for Supervisor, what has this got to do with your candidacy for the office of County Supervisor? What qualifications and experience do you possess and what plans do you have for improving the county. That is what I want to know about my candidates for Supervisor, not sensationalizing an issue that can be hashed out between the candidates for Sheriff. My best advice for you is to get yourself elected to the post for which you are running, then you can ask the tough questions to other county department heads.

concerned voter:

a few things:

The FBI is not in the business of exonerating anyone. You're correct. However the US AG could have brought charges and didn't. Why? Could it be that the corruptocrats of San Mateo County have friends in high places? The county supervisors are Munks' boss. Why didn't they take any action? More corruption?

As a candidate for county supervisor, a position that would make him Munks' BOSS, I'm happy to have him asking these questions. It's a shame our elected supervisors weren't asking these questions when our chief of law enforcement got caught in a brothel featuring under age girls.

This doesn't need to be hashed out between candidates for sheriff it needs to be brought up by the people that will be overseeing him. Our current crop of "overseers" are too corrupt to do it, so I don't care what other "qualifications" DeGeolia has. The fact he won't stand for this kind of illegal behavior by our Sheriff makes him more than qualified in my book.

Greg Munks has served our County exceptionally well as Sheriff. Move on.

Educator:

Munks was busted in an underage brothel. You honestly don't have a problem with that?

To Educator:

I don't think you understand that at the brothel where Munks, Bolanis and all of the other men who were caught in  FBI sting there were underage, trafficked girls. Munks , bolanis and the other men were BREAKING THE LAW. That is why the FBI did a sting on the brothel. The girls were underaged

As Sheriff ,Munks knows the laws concerning citizens who hire underaged trafficked girls who are set up to become prostitutes. He knows it's against the law.

Other law enforcement from around the country who have been caught doing what Munks did have been forced to resign. Forced to resign because they no longer had the trust or respect from citizens! 

But in San Mateo Munks not only inexplicably got to keep his job but then arrogantly has refused toanswer any and all questions from the public on this matter. This is not the action of a responsible leader whose job is to uphold the law. 

He is an elected official whose salary is paid for by the tax payees. He works for the public- not the other way around. His refusal to answer questions makes this matter even more troublingOne can't "move on" untilone  has first addressed the issue in an honest forthright manner.

Sweeping things under the rug( or what you refer to as "moving on" )NEVER works.


As you may have read , at a press conference about human trafficking in San Mateo, a woman in the audience asked Munks how he could work on this project as prostitutes are trafficked.  He wasn't mature or decent enough to respond. Clealy this woman still has nagging questions and hasn't moved on - but boy would Munks ever like her to.

A suggestion: go the FBI website and read up on the subject of human trafficking. It's horrifying.

One thing to think about Educator's comment is that Woodside's Law Enforcement is the Sheriff's Department.
This thread shows a recent abuse of authority/power. This is only going to get worse not better, we can all thank our Supervisors for not supervising. We have a woman speaking out at a public meeting and a candidate asking a question at a public meeting. What if the Sheriff thought these two people were his enemies? Could he access a computer system/data base? The woman was right, there is no way that San Mateo County's Sheriff Office can be involved with any anti Human Trafficking Underaged Sex Slave Poster Program.

I would like to say Thank You to the woman, and Mark De Paula both concerned citizens.

Mr. Menlo Voter: you're off the hook.

I haven't yet found a voter reg drive in those areas (imagine my surprise.) Given the cut-off prior to this June's election, I will not be inviting you to a reg drive. Time is too short given the waiting period described on the election site.

I know you're disappointed. The thought of outreach to the Hispanic community to support Mr. Lopez must have been keeping you awake at night with excitement!

So - go ahead and crow, bring on the I-told-you-so's. I over-promised. Shall we try again in September before the general?

So that makes us equal: we both have done absolutely the same amount to help Mr. Lopez and fight corruption in the county.

Other than anonymously post that we both have done SO MUCH YOU CAN'T IMAGINE!

mr. barnes:

if you want to set one up in September that's fine by me. Name the date, time and location.

no crowing here.

And we haven't done the same amount to fight corruption in the county. You've done nothing.

I look forward to meeting up in September.

Todays Palo Alto Daily Post article about Supervisor Race between Carole Groom and Mark De Paula it says that Carole Groom was one of the people to ask for Sheriff Greg Munks' resignation in 2007 after he was detained in Las Vegas in April in a prostitution sting operation.

Does anybody know about that, today was the first I ever heard about that.

Does the information about Carole Groom asking for Munks' resignation in the story come from her or does it come from the reporter? Ms. Groom would have been on the San Mateo City Council at the time. A Google search turns up nothing on her asking for Munks' resignation so far, but if someone finds something, please post. Also, isn't Munks supporting Groom in this election?

The Almanac did report back in 2008 that Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo both blasted Munks for refusing to answer questions.


April 30, 2008. Atherton Almanac:

Web Link

Sheriff's detainment could prompt new county policies

• Supervisors to rethink how to discipline Munks, other elected officials, in case of misconduct.


Excerpt:

San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks says he's moved on from an incident in which he was caught in a Las Vegas brothel bust a year ago, but it's clear the issue won't be going away anytime soon.
As early as May 6, the Board of Supervisors is expected to discuss how to hold elected officials, such as Sheriff Munks, more accountable for any misconduct they may commit outside the workplace.

Initial ideas floated by supervisors include forming a court-appointed ethics commission, or putting a charter amendment on the November ballot that would give supervisors the power to investigate or remove other elected officials.

Whatever action supervisors take in the coming months, it would be likely not to apply to Sheriff Munks' brief detainment in April 2007. But it's no secret that the sheriff's actions are at the root of the board's sudden interest in the accountability issue.

In recent stories in the San Mateo County Times and San Mateo Daily News, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park — both former county supervisors — blasted the sheriff's unwillingness to answer questions about his detainment, and criticized supervisors for their reluctance to investigate the matter.

Carole Groom did tell the County Times in 2008 that she wished Munks had resigned. She was Mayor of San Mateo at the time.

Sheriff scandal spurs reform talk
By Michael Manekin
San Mateo County Times

POSTED: 05/09/2008 11:08:32 PM PDT
Web Link



San Mateo County's elected officials should be held publicly accountable for their actions.

That's the unanimous opinion of several area politicians interviewed in the wake of a San Mateo County Times investigation that found county officials did not hold San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks to account after he was detained by police last year at an illegal Las Vegas brothel.

"Everybody who's elected is held to a higher standard," San Mateo Mayor Carole Groom said. "I don't even want to get a parking ticket, quite frankly."

That's why she was "stunned" by the sheriff's trip to an illegal brothel, she said.

"It was troubling a year ago, and now that the media has brought it up, it's troubling all over again," Groom said. "I always had the highest regard for (Sheriff Munks), but I wish that he had addressed the (scandal) at the time, and I wish that he admitted it, and I wish that he had resigned."

Great question I have called to speak with reporter to ask that exact question, she was not in today….

"Does the information about Carole Groom asking for Munks' resignation in the story come from her or does it come from the reporter?" I doubt it would have come from the reporter because it has never been reported on to my knowledge.

As you might know on May 14, 2007 I sent a certified letter to Sheriff Greg Munks demanding his resignation. The San Jose Mercury News did a story on it called Forget Schindler's List we like Stogner's List.

Newsflash Supervisor District 2 Candidate Mark De Paula has gone to San Francisco and met with the FBI and U.S. Dept. of Justice United States Attorney Office Joshua B. Eaton Executive assistant for U.S. Attorney Northern District Attorney General Office 415-436-6958 this afternoon regarding SamTrans Fraud case as promised.

Mr. Stogner:

That's wonderful news that Mark de Paula met with the FBI and the US Attorney's office.

You must not have seen my second post. Carole Groom did tell the County Times in May 2008 that she wished Munks had resigned. See the above post with link to the story.

Please Clarify, Thank you I did not see that post and that statement was in 2008 not 2007.

The reason I bring this up is two reporters were doing a story 1 year later, and they called some of our elected leaders to tell them about the story that was about to be printed. That caused the comments from them, they were not upset and outraged during the year before reporters were ready with Operation Lock Down"

Do you know of any Carole Groom statement in 2007 demanding resignation of Sheriff Greg Munks?

Mr. Stogner,

Nope, sorry I don't know of any and can't find any earlier public statements by Groom on Munks. Perhaps reporters there can dig up something - if it exists.

Mr Stogner:

Joshua Eaton's correct title is Executive Assistant United States Attorney. And like Mark de Paula, he was in the military.

Joshua Eaton
Executive Assistant United States Attorney

Mr. Eaton has served as the Executive Assistant United States Attorney since he joined the Office in 2007. Prior to joining the United States Attorney’s Office, Mr. Eaton served as an Assistant General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys General Counsel’s Office from 2003 to 2007. Mr. Eaton spent his last year with the Executive Office as the Director’s Hearing Officer, presiding over Assistant United States Attorney and senior Executive Office employee grievance and disciplinary actions. Prior to his tenure with the Executive Office, Mr. Eaton served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. While on active duty in the Army, Mr. Eaton served as a prosecutor, labor and employment law attorney, and the operational law advisor to the Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division (Light) in Hawaii. In addition, while on active duty, Mr. Eaton served as the Chief of Military Justice and primary legal advisor to the Ground Forces Commander for the U.S. Army-led Northern Division of the multinational stabilization force deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Eaton graduated from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and received his law degree from the University of San Francisco.

To Menlo Voter:

If you are familiar with how the legal system works, evidence comes to the attention of law enforcement that wrongdoing is occurring. Then an investigation ensues, whereupon either the investigators gather sufficient evidence to determine that there is "reasonable cause" to take action or in this case, perform a raid and detain individuals of their personal liberties. I say liberties, because although technically an arrest, a detention is considered less because of the briefness of time the person remains in custody. In this case, the law enforcement personnel in Las Vegas acted as I have just explained. Now the officers that conducted the detention must then decide if they have the "probable cause" for arrest. Obviously they had doubts. I do not want to speculate what those doubts are, but I am sure that they existed as they then submitted their investigation to the local prosecutors, whether it is the US Attorney or the local prosecutors, they make a determination as to whether they can move forward and prove to a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" the elements of the crime and prove to the same standard that the accused was the person who committed that crime. If they decline to prosecute, then it is their determination that with the evidence at hand, they cannot meet that standard and it is within their desecration to decline to move forward with the case. I hope that answers your question about why a prosecutor would decline to prosecute. I would liken this to being present at a party where drugs are being used and the DEA does a raid and you are caught up in the net. You may not have used drugs. But you are there. Does your mere presence make you guilty? I think that we can agree that it does not. Should you lose you job over an incident where you are detained? I don't know, but in Sheriff Munks case, it is the voters that get to determine that.

As to the appropriateness of Mr. DePaula asking the question to Sheriff Munks, if in fact Mr. DePaula was concerned about the appropriate handling of this case, then the question should have been posed to his opponent or the Board of Supervisors as a body. Mr. DePaula did not do this. He inserted himself into another election race and sought to blindside another candidate for that race. Now, I am sure if elected, Mr. DePaula would make a fine member of the board of supervisors and would seek to ask those tough questions of the other department heads, but as a lone member of the board, he would not have hiring or firing authority over other elected department heads. Actually, he would have no authority on his own as only the board, collectively as a unit has any real say as to how departments are run. Now that is not to say that he would not have influence over a variety of issues, but I do not believe that getting Sheriff Munks to resign would be one of the things that he would be able to convince his fellow board members to take action on.

To Menlo Voter:

If you are familiar with how the legal system works, evidence comes to the attention of law enforcement that wrongdoing is occurring. Then an investigation ensues, whereupon either the investigators gather sufficient evidence to determine that there is "reasonable cause" to take action or in this case, perform a raid and detain individuals of their personal liberties. I say liberties, because although technically an arrest, a detention is considered less because of the briefness of time the person remains in custody. In this case, the law enforcement personnel in Las Vegas acted as I have just explained. Now the officers that conducted the detention must then decide if they have the "probable cause" for arrest. Obviously they had doubts. I do not want to speculate what those doubts are, but I am sure that they existed as they then submitted their investigation to the local prosecutors, whether it is the US Attorney or the local prosecutors, they make a determination as to whether they can move forward and prove to a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" the elements of the crime and prove to the same standard that the accused was the person who committed that crime. If they decline to prosecute, then it is their determination that with the evidence at hand, they cannot meet that standard and it is within their desecration to decline to move forward with the case. I hope that answers your question about why a prosecutor would decline to prosecute. I would liken this to being present at a party where drugs are being used and the DEA does a raid and you are caught up in the net. You may not have used drugs. But you are there. Does your mere presence make you guilty? I think that we can agree that it does not. Should you lose you job over an incident where you are detained? I don't know, but in Sheriff Munks case, it is the voters that get to determine that.

As to the appropriateness of Mr. DePaula asking the question to Sheriff Munks, if in fact Mr. DePaula was concerned about the appropriate handling of this case, then the question should have been posed to his opponent or the Board of Supervisors as a body. Mr. DePaula did not do this. He inserted himself into another election race and sought to blindside another candidate for that race. Now, I am sure if elected, Mr. DePaula would make a fine member of the board of supervisors and would seek to ask those tough questions of the other department heads, but as a lone member of the board, he would not have hiring or firing authority over other elected department heads. Actually, he would have no authority on his own as only the board, collectively as a unit has any real say as to how departments are run. Now that is not to say that he would not have influence over a variety of issues, but I do not believe that getting Sheriff Munks to resign would be one of the things that he would be able to convince his fellow board members to take action on.

To concerned voter:

First, you describe how the system IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. In this case, it is entirely possible that the FBI gave Munks and Bolanos a "free pass" based on what I would call unprofessional courtesy cause Munks and Bolanos are senior law enforcement types. They were found as customers of a house of underage prostitution. I know they said they didn't realize that, but I'm going to venture a guess that just about every single person ever caught in that situation has said the same thing. That statement alone can't negate the probable cause, otherwise there would never be an arrest for such a crime.

Second, in San Francisco, the mayor suspended the elected sheriff and their analogue of the board of supervisors considered removing him from his position. He did take a plea for a domestic violence incident. On the scale of crimes in that range, it was fairly minor, but the point is he did pay his price, admit responsibility, and take his punishment. I didn't think he should lose his job over it. But although you have noted an important difference in these two situations (Munks was never arrested, charged, let alone convicted), the suspicious circumstances regarding Munks' total lack of accountability has justifiably angered concerned voters. The San Francisco situation indicates the San Mateo supervisors could take similar action if they wanted to.

In instances such as this, the Board of Supervisors should have the power to initiate a recall election to let voters decide. If they do not have that power now, the Legislature should enable it. If not, there is always the initiative route.

To "Concerned Voter."

You said of Mr. de Paula, " He inserted himself into another election race and sought to blindside another candidate for that race."

"Blindside another candidate?" So are you also accusing the woman who asked Munks a question on the same topic at a public meeting of "blindsiding " him?

Are you also accusing reporters at the Daily Post for asking him the same question in an interview two years ago of blindsiding him?

Munks is not a child. He is the sheriff of the County; he carries a gun. He is a grown man who should be able and required to handle questions from the public the way other elected law enforcement officials and politicians have been forced to do around this country when they have committed misconduc. When you are an elected official EVERYTHING is fair game and they should be prepared for ANYTHING asked by the public and reporters.

Actually Munks has gotten off really easy. If this had happened in Chicago, or DC or New York, you would bet that both the press and the voters would have kept asking him questions until he responded. They wouldn't stand for his stonewalling.

Munks is an elected official. He answers TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED HIM.; He is the person who went into the house of prostitution; he hid from reporters; won't answer citizens questions. As head of the law enforcement agency in San Mateo who arrests people for doing the same thing he did, one would HOPE that he would be PREPARED for these questions. He should be prepared for ANY AND ALL questions on this.

You don't think Munks doesn't think about the Vegas incident every day since it happened? Most likely he does. One would imagine that he prays that he doesn't get asked about it every day. If he has "moved on" from it, as he said in 2008, he sure has a funny way of handling it. He is shaken when the Palo Alto Daily Post asks him about it; he refuses to even answer the question from a citizen who is paying taxes to pay his salary; he sics his enabler, that officer on de Paula, to interrogate him after de Paula asked the question. This is NOT professional behavior from the Sheriff. As Jackie Speier said in 2008, Munks was never held accountable for his actions. He paid no price ( except for the shame of getting caught and the fact that it happened and the public is not going to forget it)

He won't answer questions about it; he doesn't seem to have answers. He is not supposed to be shielded by enablers who protect him from answering honest questions. Stop shielding him and enabling him. He's not Elvis who needs to be coddled and protected from the public. He is a grown man - the SHERIFF , for cripes sake and needs to answer the questions. Better late than never.

Did you not read the article posted here where Carole Groom talked in 2008 about setting up a system so supervisors COULD take action when someone like Munks is caught doing what he did?

To that end, Mr. De Paula has EVERY RIGHT to ask Munks the question. The last batch of Supervisors talked the big talk about how they were going to make sure the Munks thing would never happen again. But they dropped the ball.

The Supervisors are technically those who are supposed to be the agency that citizens go to for help when there is prosecutorial or sheriff misconduct.

As another commenter pointed out here, the Supervisors are the boss of Munks. De Paula did NOT insert himself in another race. He, thankfully, is just one of the people who had the guts to actually ask the questions that the current Supervisors should have asked long ago.

Bravo, Mr. de Paula.

To "Concerned Voter."

One final thought:

Here are some tips for public officials who don't like being "blindsided" by questions from the public about a dark episode in their past:

1) Do not do break the law or commit misconduct that brings public shame to one's office and oneself.

2) If you do commit misconduct, behave like a responsible adult. First, apologize to the public for betraying their trust. Be honest, open and forthright. Then, answer every question from every reporter and every citizen who helped get you elected and even from those who didn't.

3) Then RESIGN. Immediately.

Presto! No more having to be "blindsided " by those pesky questions from the public.

concerned voter:


I am quite familiar with how the legal system works. I'm ex-law enforcement. You were doing great right up until your inapt comparison to being caught at a party where drugs were being used, but you were not. I'll say this slowly...Munks was in a house of prostitution that specialized in under age women...there's only one reason you go to house of prostitution and it's not to stand around while others are doing their business.

If I'm not mistaken, but I could be, this brothel was in a part of Nevada which has not legalized prostitution. so, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the age status of the prostitutes he was going to visit, he was going someplace that anyone with a reasonable level of law enforcement proficiency should have known was ILLEGAL.

So the prosecutor gave him a pass. Probably would have been an iffy case to prove knowledge of the underage status of the girls. But the board of supervisors most certainly should not have. They should have fired him or requested his resignation. They did neither. In fact they did nothing. And our illustrious corrupt DA told Munks that "the people that matter" still support him. I guess that means the voters and citizens of San Mateo County don't matter.

De Paula was perfectly within his rights as a citizen of this county to ask Munks a question. Any question. The reaction of Munks goes a long way telling the rest of us that he knows what he did was wrong and he got away with it.

Menlo Voter - yes, it was in an area where prostitution is illegal. If I was anyone, especially a cop, going to have some fun with the ladies of the night, and I was in a state where it's legal in much of the state, I'd make sure I'd go to one of those legal areas. Oh, and I'd make sure it was a reputable place. Munks was lame enough to not do any of that, and cowardly enough to blame his drive for taking them there. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, right? But apparently, feigned ignorance IS an excuse in the eyes of other corrupt law enforcement officials.

Anecdotally, from what I've ascertained in our county, many either aren't aware of this incident, or have forgotten about it, so they continue to vote for him.

Something that Mr. Munks missed, which should have keyed him in to the fact that the location was probably not a legal brothel, or a "licenced massage parlor":

It was in a residence described by the local FBI this way: "run-down apartments and homes with mattresses on the floors and the stench of cigarettes, urine and feces in the air" ("Four indicted after brothel raids", Las Vegas Review-Journal, December 11, 2007)

Sounds like relaxing fun after a charity run.

Why not ask someone who was involved? My name is Jody Williams. I'm the founder and director of Sex Workers Anonymous. I was trying to get arrests for trafficking that was happening in Las Vegas despite the fact that we had rampant corruption. I point you to David Shubert who was only found dead last year from drug abuse - who was the DA in Vegas. I point you to the G Sting arrests where the attorney for one of the men arrested was the son of the existing mayor, Oscar Goodman. I point you to the charges against Doug Gillespie, Chief of Police who stepped down amidst charges of corruption. Of course, another police officer, a female who had previously been a typist and confessed to having "wanted to be a cop" when she was younger, Lt. Karen Hughes, who also happens to be head of vice, is in charge of Internal Affairs. So tell me - how am I supposed to get an arrest against men like this in Vegas when the police, the DA, and now that Daniel Bogden is gone, now even the NV US Attorney in their pocket? Especially with the media in their pocket. How can I prove that? Check out the Reviw Journal. Despite living there since 1996 - you'll not find one word about me except in an international press conference I gave. Not before. Not after. Not even in a 2013 five page spread on NV trafficking groups was one word printed about me. They sure knew I was there - I was even asked for the names of the people who appeared in the article. When the reporter on that 2013 article pushed to have my name included because the other groups were fake - he was fired. So how do I get an arrest in this case? I brought in outside media to push on cops to do a "random" arrest for their cameras. They waltzed into the brothel that was an apartment building mind you where these two officers were standing. They claimed to have asked a cab driver where to find a massage. If you know the layout of Vegas - you can't go ONE BLOCK without finding a massage parlor. But they drove 20 minutes to this house - and we're supposed to believe they thought it was a legit massage parlor? Web Link What happened to the women? Despite there being bags of drugs with this arrest, and over 24 women, these women weren't even booked and were let go literally in 20 minutes. I got the call from ATLAS we were going to go talk to these women. By the time we got there - they had been released. We were refused the address or their names. It's the law that ICE has to process these women to see if they're in the country legally and if they have their own passports. They were let go in 20 minutes back to their pimp - and both ATLAS and myself were refused their address so we could go talk to them to see if they needed help. Then the case was "dismissed" - and men like Greg Munks just go around saying this was "boys will be boys". Maybe him in a massage parlor was "boys will be boys" and maybe it wasn't the drop that I had been saying was going on. Because I was hammering the system that this ring was transporting stolen car parts, guns, drugs and prostitutes, in police cars, marshal cars, and sheriff's cars so they wouldn't be stopped or questioned in a trafficking and crime ring that spanned from CA to KT - with Vegas as one stop on the run. I don't care if the cop screws. But those women weren't his girlfriend - nor even some slut in a bar. Those women were victims Victims who we witnessed were denied help in order to stop questions into those two cops. We witnessed the power that Greg Munks has - and then you guys put him in office afterwards? Do you really think that this doesn't affect you? The problem here is that when it does affect one of you - who are you going to tell? When the system to protect you is broken - who is going to protect you when they come for you? Didn't we learn anything from the holocaust?

Thanks Jody. Just confirms what those of us think about our [word removed] Sheriff.

After doing more research on OPERATION DOLLHOUSE, I found more brick walls.
I contacted Lt. Hughes of the Las Vegas police and her admin’s would not allow me to speak to her, also she would not return my calls.
Salvation Army was assisting the law enforcement agencies in OPERATION DOLLHOUSE.
I also contacted the Salvation Army to speak to the manager of social services, and no return calls.
Salvation Army gets grants to operate in helping victims of human trafficking / sex slavery.
During this raid on Eldon Street in Las Vegas, Sheriff Munks & Undersheriff Bolanos were detained and released along with the other 20 plus Johns.
Is it standard for law enforcement to release the Johns ?
I think not.
The persons who were tried in Federal Court were the persons running these illegal sex slave houses, they were found guilty.

I wonder if it is standard procedure from the F.B.I. to let Johns go, when they raid illegal sex slave houses?

Than You Mark DePaula

For investing your time and money to travel to Las Vegas last month. I know not 1 San Mateo County reporter did that. Robert Lyles of CBS 5 San Francisco did he was the only one.

New information by DePaula.

Law Enforcement agent had met with pimps/operators of 3474 Eldon St residence and discussed purchasing it months before Munks and Bolanos closed down Operation Dollhouse.

Forfeiture action: $484,655.00

Names of the girls/women inside 3474 Eldon St.

Thank You

Thanks for the support, we the public/ voters of San Mateo County must know that the operators involved were found guilty by the federal authorities.
Again, why did the Johns not get charged?
Sheriff Munks & Undersheriff Bolanos were just detained.
The Court of Public opinion, does not have a time limit.