Defense attorney accuses DA of vendetta in prosecution of sheriff's deputy

One Waxstaffe was presented with evidence that former Atherton mayor Charles Marsala voted in an Atherton election with an address given as a home he sold that was actually knocked down at the time of the election, he did nothing.

Good point, Hmm. Wagstaffe sure has a double standard. Good for attorney Hanlon for finally bringing this issue to the forefront. Wagstaffe's fawning emails to Munks after he was caught going into the brothel for underaged trafficked girls was sickening and unprofessional.

When reporter Scott Morris says last week in this article he means this week. It was just 2 days ago Wednesday 2/18/2015 that the additional charges bail and 2 new defendants were added.

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

Juan Lopez is a San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy, not a former deputy, that is a false statement.

Scott Morris and the Almanac might want to publish a correction.

Everyone should write this one down to remember.

"While running for office, Mr. Lopez and Ms. Segura-Chavez, acting as his campaign treasurer, allegedly embezzled as much as $400,000 in campaign funds for personal use, prosecutors said."

Just because DA Steve Wagstaffe says something is true, doesn't mean that it is.

That "$400,000" really surprised me, because I didn't think Lopez raised anywhere near that amount. He didn't get that many votes and barely did any publicity.

Anyone know how much Lopez really raised for his campaign?

So, Greg Munks who had far more donors to his campaign for his re-election last year, only raised $32, 183.

Web Link

Excerpt:

Sheriff Greg Munks raised $3,750 in his unopposed bid for re-election for the period March 18 to May 17, bringing his total to $32,183 to date, according to campaign finance disclosure forms due Thursday. He spent $15,377.16 to date.

___

So can the Almanac reporters explain to me why Wagstaffe said that Lopez and his manager misused $400,000 in election funds? Did anyone bother to ask him to explain this absurd figure? Very few people in the County knew that Lopez was running. He was a write-in candidate and did almost no publicity. There is no way in hell he raised that kind of money.

Anyone?

Here is the SMDJ article by the same reporter Scott Morris of Bay City News and there is NO mention of the $400,000
being embezzled.

Web Link

Well this is virtually the same article and the Almanac printed the $400,000 figure. There is no way in hell Lopez raised that kind of money.

Not exact numbers but close.

Juan Lopez raised $500.00 and spent close to $10,000 on his campaign for Sheriff of San Mateo County.

It would be great if one of the Almanac's reporters could straighten this out.

Those numbers are more like it, Mr. Stogner. Let's hope the Almanac asks for clarification... Wagstaffe was sent a warning by the California Bar in 2010 after he lied to the press in a defendant's rape case. The Almanac has a copy of this letter of notification... Please get to the bottom of this.

Perhaps Deputy Lopez might want to think about filing a complaint against Wagstaffe with the California Bar.

Er, Almanac? Your OWN PAPER reported that Lopez only raised $1000. How on earth then do you reconcile publishing that Lopez misused $400,000 in campaign funds?

Web Link

Ok, reporter Scott Morris says that DA Wagstaffe just contacted him about the $400,000 number and that it is incorrect. The amount that Wagstaffe says Lopez used for his personal use, according to Morris is "unspecified."

The Almanac has also been trying to clarify the $400,000 figure. We have removed the figure from the story and will provide more information as it becomes available.

"So can the Almanac reporters explain to me why Wagstaffe said that Lopez and his manager misused $400,000 in election funds? "

Because our DA is an Habitual liar? Just a hunch.

This is the funny not so funny part of San Mateo County.

I was in the court room with Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez and Ms. Chavez for the entire proceeding and booking process. I never once heard about $400,000.

Some guy for a room in Oakland named Scott Morris producing this nonsense and gets it published in at least 3 papers. He admitted per phone call today with Mark DePaula that he was not in the courtroom. Corrections are needed.

1) Juan Lopez is a Sheriff Deputy………….not former, even Steve Wagstaffe says he is former. That is not right.

The Ayres blog notes that last year the Almanac posted a story that talked about Lopez not having to file a campaign report last year because he raised less than a thousand dollars.

It appears that Lopez raised a total of $250. And Wagstaffe is accusing him of EMBEZZLING the funds? Doesn't anyone at the Almanac see how ludicrous this is? Why didn't Wagstaffe look at how Munks spent his funds? There was a lot more money there- $32,000. I have half a mind to send this to Gawker, because it will make the San Mateo DA's office the laughing stock of this country.

Web Link

How does a DA investigate a person for embezzlement of campaign funds for their personal use when the person only raises $250 for their election?

Has the Almanac asked DA Wagstaffe if he has examined Munks's use of his $32,000 election funds?Shouldn't there be equal treatment here?

Why is it that the DA's office first said that Lopez smuggled cell phones into the jail but now is saying that he just "knew " about it? Don't reporters and citizens realize that this is an absolute use of power to spread false stories in the press like this to smear someone? This is an abuse of power and it echoes what happened in the case where in 2010 the California Bar sent a warning to Wagstaffe after he lied to the San Mateo Daily News about the facts of a rape case the day before the trial. The Almanac has a copy of this letter and knows the name of the defendant in that case.

Doesn't anyone see that the DA's office has gone certifiably off its rocker? Please, do some fact checking, reporters!

Duplicate post. Please remove second post.

"Has the Almanac asked DA Wagstaffe if he has examined Munks's use of his $32,000 election funds?Shouldn't there be equal treatment here?"

You've got to be kidding. Munks is one of those "that matters" in Wagstaffe's world. He gets a pass even when he gets caught in a brothel featuring underage prostitutes. Not so much as a censure from the County Supervisors.

And the sheeple of San Mateo County just keep voting for these people. Amazing.

I got a funny feeling, but it’s not really funny.
Mr. Scott Morris of BAY CITY NEWS( the reporter for this story) just might have taken a press release from SMC D.A. Wagstaffe.
Wagstaffe can not make up his mind up on how many cases his office handles in a year.
Wagstaffe said in a interview with PEN TV in Oct. 2014 that his office handles 24,000 cases a year.
November 5, 2014 , he tells Vic Lee of KGO TV after Prop. 47 passed that 1/3 of his 3,000 cases he handles a year will be dropped.
After the arrest of Deputy Lopez in November 2014 he said on TV that his office handles 18,000 cases a year.
Just maybe, D.A. Wagstaffe mixed up the numbers of $ 400,000.00 , which is crazy!
Another reason not to trust D.A. Wagstaffe.

Embezzlement sounds better if it's for large amounts of money. You're not going to get anyone riled up if someone spent thousands of dollars of their own money and then tapped just $250 in donation to try to offset some of their personal expense.

$400K on the other hand... now *that's* SHOCKING! We all want to be SHOCKED by the impropriety don't we??

Likewise, It's better to toss in all kinds of drug stuff if all you've got is the implication that someone *may* have been in the position to notice that a prisoner had a cell phone.

Wagstaffe is doing a great job of whipping up the "press" and defending upstanding employees like Munks! Sheesh, everyone needs to calm down here. No reason to upset the Dollhouse.

Or... maybe Wagstaffe is conflating a few facts, a la Brian Williams -- About $400,000 in cash deposits is what was found and used as evidence against Ms. Jia Hui Keyes... Perhaps Wagstaffe had *that* prosecution swirling around in the back of his mind!

Did the Palo Alto Daily Post also report the $400,000 figure ?

Has the Almanac investigated to see if there is any history of interaction between Lopez 's fiancé Evelyn and Sheriff Munks in past years? Attorney Stuart Hanlon has the answer to this.. This story has deep roots. Can't wait for witness statements!

Holly L. asks "Did the Palo Alto Daily Post also report the $400,000 figure ?"

answer no

Attorney Stuart Hanlon is the perfect attorney for a politically motivated case.

Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez case started with a "Tip from inside the JAIL" Search Warrants still hidden. the recent Scott Morris character assignation (former, $400,000)

Stuart Hanlon starts about 3:30 mark in video

Web Link

character assassination,

Mr. Stogner:

doesn't the law require the defense have access to ALL evidence via discovery?

Menlo Voter:

It's called the Brady Rule, as you most likely know. Although in its 2010 report on prosecutorial misconduct in California, the Northern California Innocence Project singled out then- San Mateo prosecutor Al Giannini as one of the state's worst offenders for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence. See page 13

Web Link

Menlo Voter asks

Mr. Stogner:

doesn't the law require the defense have access to ALL evidence via discovery?

Yes it does, our DA does not follow the law. you also need to find a Judge that respects the upholds the law.

Attorney Stuart Hanlon is perfect for this case.

Sheriff Deputy Juan Lopez was opposed to the building of the New Jail and especially opposed to the expensive bonds to finance it. He was in favor of the voters to vote on it, the Supervisors, Sheriff and DA didn't want the voters to have a say.

It seems Mr. Hanlon needs to take this to the AG.

How can DA Wagstaffe justify recusing himself from the child pornography case of Former San Mateo Probation chief Stuart Hanlon because , he said, he'd had a professional relationship with him, and yet won't recuse himself in this case, despite being very good friends with Munks and according to him, having a "friendly " relationship with Lopez?

In my previous comments, I meant to say San Mateo Probation Chief Stuart Forrest, not Stuart Hanlon.

I am acquainted with Sheriff’s Deputy Juan Lopez, and DA Steve Wagstaffe.
When Juan ran as a write-in candidate for Sheriff, I voted for him. I later met him and his fiancee at a San Mateo County Libertarian Party meeting. Mark De Paula, John McDowell and I, running as a team for the Sequoia Healthcare District Board of Directors, sought and received the Party endorsement. Juan helped Mark place campaign signs for the team. I trust Juan Lopez.
My experience with Wagstaffe was in relation to a complaint I filed regarding three “sitting” Sequoia Healthcare District Directors, Kane, Griffin and Faro, who had voted themselves an increase in health insurance benefits. After exchanging communications with Mark Hudak, counsel for the District, the DA’s office declined to take action to seek return of benefits erroneously received by the trio.
Hudak is well known in the San Mateo County legal community. Was this a conflict of interest? Shouldn’t the DA have referred this to the Attorney General or the Grand Jury?
See:Web Link

I question Wagstaffe’s purpose in prosecuting Deputy Lopez.

So - Almanac Editor stated that they'd update with corrections about the $400,000.00 claim as soon as they clarified everything.

It's been a few days now, so... what 'cha find out?? (The anticipation is killing me...)

Progress report on the $400,000 embezzlement source per Scott Morris of Bay City News Service.

It did not come from Attorney Stuart Hanlon, he has confirmed that he spoke with Scott Morris but that subject was not mentioned.

News update Tonight 10:00PM KTVU 2

That was a pretty good report!

Best of all, nobody can call into question Wagstaffe's email supporting Munks after he was busted by the FBI at an illegal brothel, because Wags confirmed it, and even had the gall to stand behind it now, while the other side of his mouth was talking about prosecuting Lopez because it's the right thing to do if somebody does something wrong.

Next let's see if anyone can figure out who came up with the $400,000.00 figure.

Here's the KTVU news clip about Lopez/ Munks and Wagstaffe

Web Link

The Ayres blog has a post up with the KTVU video and asks why Wagstaffe has one standard for Munks and another for Lopez.

Web Link

I am sure Wagstaffe and Munks didn't expect to have the tables turned on them in this case as no one ever fact checks them or fights back. It's about time this happened.