Chronicle story: Deputy Lopez's attorney Stuart Hanlon Accuses DA Wagstaffe of Retaliating against Lopes for Running Against Sheriff Munks

I apologize for misspelling Lopez's name in the header.

"Wagstaffe responded that his office had “no motivation other than holding somebody accountable when they’ve committed a crime.”

Funny. I didn't see him trying to hold an Atherton Police officer accountable for falsifying a police report. A felony. In fact he did every thing in his power to deny justice to the victim of that falsification.

Just more stink coming from our corrupt DA.

I thought this started out as a case against someone who as a police officer brought phones to an inmate in prison. It seems it keeps getting revised against that original case. Critics originally stated Lopez was being persecuted for having run against Greg Munks, Wagstaffe's friend, by the way. Now Lopez's girlfriend is being arrested for helping him in that election. There's a very Kafkaesque element to this, and it's very disturbing. Like Menlo Voter said, the idea that Wagstaffe is tough against police officers who misbehave is ridiculous. This is a special situation, clearly.

of course that is what a defendants lawyer would say.

if I had a nickel every time some lawyer said "I was flabbergasted by these charges."

Voting fraud is a huge issue. It's like Ann Coulter, voting in Conn, FLA and NYC. Being a politician, loser or otherwise, does not excuse the breaking of the law.

Aston Matin:

I would wager that Mr. Hanlon is on the mark and where there is smoke, there is fire.

Almanac story about DA's office in 2011.

Web Link

Ann Coulter has nothing to do with this case.

I see that the Ayres blog today raised an interesting issue re: The DA's conflict of interest in this case. Why did Wagstaffe for exampkecr cuse himself from prosecuting the fhild pornography case of Chief probation officer Stuart Forrst whom he had a working relationship with, but won't recuse himself on fire he Lopez case after admitted no that he was good friends with links and was friendly with Lopez ? Will the Almanac ask Wagstaffe about this discrepancy?

Right now we have DA Steve Wagstaffe prosecuting/persecuting Juan Lopez and his girlfriend over two issues:

1. Lopez "probably" knew phones were being given to inmates in the jail.

2. Lopez and his girlfriend misappropriated $250 of campaign donations.

How much does it cost San Mateo County taxpayers to prosecute a case involving at best $250?

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that Lopez and his girlfriend did misappropriate the $250. Instead of spending it on the campaign, they went out for a very nice dinner.

Would the fact that Lopez ran against Wagstaffe buddy Greg Munks cause any well-grounded D.A. to determine that the bad optics involved, the fact it could look like a vendetta-based prosecution because of a very fundamental American right, to participate in a democratic election and criticize the ideas and actions of an opposing candidate, outweighs the possible benefits to society of redressing a $250 wrong?

At best this is very poor judgment on the part of Wagstaffe. At best. It's more likely a conscious decision to destroy this man because Munks told him to.

Oh yes, there is one additional issue he's being prosecuted for: saying he lived in Redwood City with his girlfriend when he ran for sheriff when he really lived in Fremont. Given that Lopez worked in Redwood City, I find it far more likely he was living with his girlfriend in Redwood City than with his cousin in Fremont. Again, it seems like a very flimsy issue to prosecute over, since how is anyone going to prove he really didn't live with his girlfriend?

On the $250 matter... I suspect that we may be splitting hairs even finer than quibbling over a $250 wrong vs prosecution costs:

If a candidate loans their own campaign money, in most places they are allowed to repay that loan from their campaign donations. (I'm not sure about specifics of the law here...) However, usually there are specific accounting procedures that are to be followed in order to keep everything on the up-and-up...

Lopez was not required to file documentation of his donations because it was less than $1000. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Lopez spent MORE of his own money than he received in donations. I'd also *guess* that it's possible that financial accounting was less rigorous than may have been wise, given the fact that they were not even required to declare donations.

My guess is that this is a really convenient opportunity for Wagstaffe to grossly inflate some somewhat irregular accounting involved in the Lopez campaign reclaiming some tiny percentage of what they "loaned" themselves into an "embezzlement" claim. Throw around the $400K made-up figure to fan the flames, and you've suddenly got a good sized crowd of pitchfork wielding angry people to make up your jury...

If we're going to quibble over a $250.00 accounting glitch, let's have a talk about other SMCO accounting irregularities too! (SamTrans much?)

How are they going to prove that Lopez probably "knew" about the cellphone? Isn't it his word against the jailhouse snitch who the DA said was caught with it? Just a suggestion to reporters : you might want to look at how the DA has used snitches in other cases.

Not saying this happened here but there have been documented cases in this country and covered by the media where a prosecutor knew the snitch was lying but went ahead and prosecuted the case anyway- only to have the case thrown out later.

First off, I don't quite get why the Almanac locks every thread having to do with DA Steve Wagstaffe so just registered users can post. Either make a policy that this is required for every thread, as Peter Carpenter has asked for, or enforce the alternative policy (not required) uniformly.

I watched the video of Stuart Hanlon and Steve Wagstaffe being interviewed on KTVU. This is all really absurd. I'm surprised the Board of Supervisors isn't doing something about this, since it makes San Mateo County look awful. There are famous examples in history of people being arrested for engaging in political activities, but they're all from times and places that are not looked on very favorably (Soviet Union, Havel in Communist Czechoslovakia, Walesa in Communist Poland, Mandela in Apartheid South Africa, to name a few). This type of retaliation typically does not involve an admission that the arrest and prosecution is due to political activity, but rather ginned up charges, just like this.

This statement by Wagstaffe- said in a tone that was laced with contempt- stuck out for me. "Well it was NEVER a serious race to begin with."

For Wagstaffe - a sitting DA- to say on camera "Well, it was never a serious race to begin with" shows yet again how inappropriate he can be - and ARROGANT. This cavalier comment underscores his cozy relationship with Munks and his bias against Lopez.
Who is Wagstaffe to say that it was never a serious race? Really, how dare he? It certainly comes as news to those who voted for Lopez that this was not a serious election.

Ok, I get it. Those who voted for Lopez in Wagstaffe's eyes are "those who don't matter." His comment about it not being a serious race is a disgrace and shows contempt for the democratic process and the citizens of San Mateo.

If it wasn't a "serious" election, then why did the San Jose Mercury News in an editorial last year ask people to vote for Juan Lopez?

I hope the Almanac reporters will ask him about his despicable comment.

If Lopez's run for Sheriff "wasn't a serious race" according to District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, then why did the editorial board of the Palo Alto Daily Post urge voters to write in Juan Lopez's name on the ballot ? They recommended this because Munks has refused to answer all questions about what he was doing at a brothel for underaged girls.

Web Link

Palo Alto Daily News Editorial: Write Juan Lopez's name on ballot for sheriff and see what happens

Hey optics: if you log in on a mobile device, you don't have to register to post. Just make up a name and go.

The *reason* it be the way it be is because they want to snag reliable digits in case the fuzz wants them. Registered users and mobile users are tres loggable.

Obfuscating browser and Onion Router, yo!

If the San Mateo District Attorney doesn't think Deputy Lopez's race was "serious", then why is he charging him with election fraud?

Lopez was never a candidate - he didn't file papers. Supposedly because the dog ate his homework, or he got caught in traffic, or some thing or another.

Misrepresenting a home address for voting purposes? That's not real election fraud. Voting while being non-white? That's a problem - just read the papers.

Let him out. The biker gangs need all the friends they can get in this day and age. Mr. Hanlon would know that, and about terrorists organizations like the SLA that he defended.

Mr. Hanlon was able to defend another lawyer after being accused four times for abusing women, trolling for victims on craigslist.
Web Link

He's a great lawyer.

E. Spalier:

Attorney Hanlon also represented San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Greg Suhr on obstruction of justice charges.

What's your point?

@E. Spalier: Lopez was absolutely an actual candidate.

In San Mateo County your "write-in" vote only counts if the person you write-in is on the list of "pre-approved" write-in candidates. If EVERY VOTER in the county writes in the name of a person that it not pre-approved, that person does NOT win the election. If a majority of the voters write in a person that IS pre-approved, that person DOES win the election.

Lopez didn't make the deadline to run as a candidate PRINTED on the ballot, but he did meet the criteria to be a pre-approved write-in candidate. To wit: Lopez WAS a valid candidate, and he DID file the necessary paperwork as needed to run as write-in candidate.

You're welcome.

"Question": what's my point? Should be obvious: "He's a great lawyer."

He represented Suhr, the SLA, that lawyer who trolled women on craigslist, etc.. as I said.

Who's paying for this high profile talent? The union? God bless union representation for our public employees. A great thing about our country. I'm sure all the posters here agree.

Bruce: "Lopez didn't make the deadline to run as a candidate PRINTED on the ballot"

Why not?

Thank you. You are very kind.

@E. Spalier: Why didn't Lopez make the deadline for printed ballot? Dunno -- people sometimes do inexplicable things -- why did you say that Lopez wasn't an actual candidate when he clearly was, for example?

Jessica Evans, former head of the Downtown San Mateo Association has just pleaded guilty to one felony count of embezzling $5000. Wagstaffe says that if Evans completes probation and restitution, that the charge may be reduced to a misdemeanor. Will he show similar mercy for Deputy Lopez, also charged with embezzlement( although Wagstaffe won't even say how much it is for) ? I doubt it.

Web Link

Double standard brings up a good point that case the defendant plead guilty to embezzlement of $5,000

In San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez embezzlement of $400,000 of political campaign funds, source Scott Morris of Bay City News after communicating with DA Steve Wagstaffe.

We now know that that embezzlement allegation has a lower amount possible and that is $250 MAX. How do we know this simple that is all the money donated to his campaign.

Every San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy knows they could be the next Juan Lopez.

Prosecutorial Misconduct is alive and well in San Mateo County

Things change moment by moment in big complicated financial crimes like this.

I sent this e-mail to SMC District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe to avoid guns to the head of this woman in front of her children and to avoid an arrest in front of the girls.

John Warren Nov 14, 2014
To
me
Mr. Stogner,

There are no active arrest warrants on Evelyn Chavez.


John Warren
Chief Inspector
Bureau of Investigation
San Mateo County District Attorney's Office



Hello Steve,

Can you tell me if there is an active arrest warrant for Evelyn Chavez, she is as you know San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez's girlfriend. If there is she will be happy to turn herself in, and I will bring her in anytime you suggest.

Thank You

Michael G. Stogner

That was before the $250 embezzlement case opened up. No wonder the DA says the amount now is unspecified .

Here is a recent example of what might be Prosecutorial Misconduct. The reason I say that is these two men were charged 4 years ago and went through the media mud and just this week District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has dropped all charges.

Reason given "Lack of Evidence" That is 4 years of their incomes and lives. The time to determine lack of evidence is BEFORE charges are filed.

Web Link