I discovered the candidacy of Juan Lopez because I am helping another candidate for judge and I happened to see his name on the election office candidate roster on the web. So, I did some googling and I discovered a 2010 editorial titled "Won't Someone Run Against Munks? Please? Talking to people, I think voters have wanted to replace Munks for years. And, now that he has an opponent, we can. All we have to do is pass the word to write in Juan Lopez on the ballot.

This is not a matter of someone's private dalliance. I learned the sex trafficking is a vicious business that involves beating women into submission, and ranks #2 behind narcotics in dollars. A law officer who is a customer of this business is unfit for public service. And those who covered up for him are unfit also.

" A law officer who is a customer of this business is unfit for public service. And those who covered up for him are unfit also. "

That would be your San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. They all need to go. Anyone that would not take action against a sheriff that did what Munks did is not fit to serve. Of course, as our corrupt DA said in an email to Munks, "the people that matter still support you." Apparently that excludes the citizens of SMC. Disgusting.

I think this might be the first story in the county papers about Write In candidate Juan Lopez for Sheriff. He has been qualified for 20 days and no other paper has contacted him for interview…….Pass the word

Thank You Almanac

Just because. Munks is "away" he can't drag himself to a cell phone ? This sounds like that excuse that assistants for celebrities used to give:" They're out of the country and unavailable for comment."

Everyone is reachable by phone theses days. Munks was just too cowardly to speak to the reporter because he was afraid he'd be asked about Operation Dollhouse. "

Does San Mateo really want a coward for a Sheriff?

He's been a Deputy for 20 years but hasn't held any leadership responsibility in that organization during that time. Whatever you might think of Munks, the devil you know might just be better than the devil you don't. Lopez's campaign video is so full of splices and transitions, it leads one to wonder whether he has the ability to speak about the issues.

The platform sounds more like a series of internal gripes about the agencies faults than issues that are of concern to those who receive its services.

I'm all for considering a new Sheriff, but the candidate has to demonstrate some ability to lead other than running a restaurant two decades ago.

Silly Season

Better to have a clean sheriff than one with a dirty past - every time.

Silly Season:

better the devil you know???!! Seriously? You want a sheriff that was caught in an underage brothel? Really? Do you think this was the first time Munks went to an illegal brothel? My law enforcement experience tells me otherwise. Like really, I'll take a clean sheriff over a dirty one every time.

It's good that Lopez is running, but he won't win. I'm sorry that he's not smooth or sophisticated enough for this county. He doesn't come from Palo Alto, as Munks does, nor did he marry into money and prestige, as Munks did for the second time. But I also have a good "Munks is a bumbler story", too, but I won't go into it here. Munks hang out with and networks in the monied circles of the county, so it's not that the DA and Supes have his back. It's more complicated than that. Munks is also a smart guy. Arrogant of course, but smart.

But Lopes also does come across as somewhat bumbling and uninformed in this article. A sex crimes unit *is* needed. To admit publicly that he couldn't keep up when he was in that unit wasn't a smart move. He comes from a working class Mexican family in San Francisco. They're ambitious and shrewd, but is he smart enough for the job? Is he strategic enough? On a practical level, I really am not sure.

I'd prefer someone with the integrity of Lopez, whose networking hasn't been with the richest of the county, but is further spread than Munks. But our sheriff, in order to win the trust of the people, needs to be sophisticated and knows how to make things happen. Munks has those qualities.

Sure, there are a handful of us who are still so thoroughly disgusted with Munks that we won't vote for him. But remember - many of the voters have forgotten about Dollhouse or are still unaware of it. How come the media in the county don't bring it up when he's up for re-election? Why don't any publications do in-depth reporting on what Munks has accomplished since his *ahem* snafu in LV, and how his getting caught has impacted his career and his work? Do reporters and editors fear nasty blowback, such as being left out of the loop on important busts and other crime-related stories?

If Lopez feared announcing his candidacy too soon, there may be good reason. Now, of course, he's not even running a full campaign AND is subjecting himself to the potential for harassment and retaliation. I fear that he won't make it through all of this unscathed.

He won't win because he is a write-in.

Two elections in a row and no one runs against the so-called "monster" Munks? What's up with that?

The write-in has never managed? That doesn't sound right. Has he even reviewed the contractual obligations that the office has with various towns?

San Mateo County's "good olde boys " control this county. Munks has the experience, education and support from his troops and other political forces within the county. He gets the job done. People make mistakes. Do you think he and his family has suffered enough? This other candidate has no management experience and let the news check out his internal affairs jacket. Will Mr. Lopez release it to us to review his career with the sheriff 's office? Anyone that does not file in time to get their name on the real ballot...is no choice for me or our community. Why do you think no one in San Mateo county is running against Munks other than an unqualified candidate. People know Munks is unbeatable and well qualified for the position.

To 'Sure?"

Why should the taxpayers care whether Mr. Munks and his family have suffered enough? HE is the one whose actions caused suffering to his family- not us. I don't know how much Mnks has actually suffered for HIS OWN ACTIONS beyond feeling some anger that he was caught.

Compared to numerous other law enforcement officials in
The United States who have been fired for doing the same thing that Munks dud, I don't see how he has suffered at all. As Rep, Jackie Speier said ,inks has never taken responsibilty for what he did. He didn't have to suffer through the embarrassment of answering questions by the tax payers who pay for his job because
he childishly and arrogantly refuses to act like an adult man and take responsibility.

It is the citizens of San Mateo who have been ashamed and suffered because of his actions. Stop enabling and mollycoddling him. He's not three years old.

And as another commenter pointed out: have you Amy idea how much underaged trafficked girls suffer in these brothels? Beaten and threatened. I guarantee you they're suffering a lot more than Mr. Munks. Read up on them.

Juan won't win because he is a write-in. He should have taken the time to learn what he was supposed to do in order to be a proper candidate for Sheriff, but he didn't. Now, anyone who is supporting him has to take the time to make up for his mistakes. Seems like that would be a pattern if he were elected sheriff. He would do an incomplete job and the community and taxpayers would be forced to make-up for what he did not do right the first time around. The counties law enforcement is too important to leave up to someone who doesn't have the experience, and doesn't take the time to pay attention and gather all the necessary information. I understand the desire to have a contested election, but let's be honest, is Lopez the candidate we really want to support? Personally, I prefer to support a candidate(s) who at the very least knows how to properly file for candidacy.

"is Lopez the candidate we really want to support?"

Anybody but Munks.

If someone cannot file on time because of traffic...do i really want to trust them with the sheriff's office budget and responsibility? Really....

WHAT!!?!?!??!?!?

Traffic was his excuse?

I mean - wow. I could understand it if it was a real excuse like.... his dog

....ate his homework.

[portion removed.]

So people are loons because they don't want a sheriff who frequents underage brothels with his second in command? Lopez is no Einstein, but he's not corrupt.

Hmmm:

you're preaching to the beneficiaries of San Mateo county corruptocrats or at a minimum the sheeple of this county that would rather just go along with things as they instead of embracing the idea that they are surrounded by corruption.

[portion removed.]

[Removed because it responds to a comment that was removed.]

Best of luck to Mr.Lopez.

...And best of luck to the rest of us if Munks wins again. Blech.

A citizen named Lamont Phemister ( that's quite a name) had a paid advertisement in the Palo Alto Daily Post , yesterday, 5/29/2014, called, "REMOVE MUNKS AND WAGSTAFFE"

Among other things, Phemister wrote that he believed that Munks " was a knowing patronof a vicious criminal enterprise and this shows he is morally unfit to be a law officer."

He talks about the email of support DA Wagstaffe wrote to Munks and that his act was not a concern to "those who matter."

Speaking directly to Wagstaffe, the author says, "So, we ordinary voters do not matter to you, Mr. Wagstaffe? Your contempt for us and your embrace of corruption forfeits our trust and respect and our vote."

Private citizen Lamont Phemister writes and pays for his own ad in the PADP 5/29/14 page 15

REMOVE MUNKS AND WAGSTAFFE


Great job Lamont one of the ordinary voters of San Mateo County.
Mr. Wagstaffe? Your contempt for us and your embrace of corruption forfeits our trust and respect and our vote."

I have heard that leaving the space blank next to the name of a candidate who is running unopposed might trigger an audit or possibly result in having the vote thrown out. Anyone know if this is true? Is it preferable to write in a candidate, even if there is no one registered. ? I Intend to NOT vote for Wagstaffe but would like to know if there is any downside to leaving the space blank.

I have heard that leaving the space blank next to the name of a candidate who is running unopposed might trigger an audit or possibly result in having the vote thrown out. Anyone know if this is true? Is it preferable to write in a candidate, even if there is no one registered. ? I Intend to NOT vote for Wagstaffe but would like to know if there is any downside to leaving the space blank.

San Mateo Daily Journal has no Endorsement for Sheriff of San Mateo County, why?

Web Link

San Jose Mercury News and the Daily News say Write In Juan Lopez for Sheriff.

They DO NOT endorse Sheriff Greg Munks

Web Link

I was glad to read The Merc's straightforward reasoning for not supporting Munks.

I find it interested that some local bad apples have all come from PAPD: Munks, Bolanos, Verbera and Benaderet. Two of the fours have serious criminal records, and the other two were found at the illegal brothel. PAPD and its town's resident like to pretend that their PD has a lovely history, including no recent histories of profiling or bad cops. So much attention was put on the Menlo officer who was caught with a prostitute, it seems only fair that the other two with the S.O. get the spotlight constantly shined on them, given their status in county law enforcement. It was and remains shamefully despicable.