tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post1014457489790766399..comments2024-02-13T14:00:44.681-08:00Comments on william h ayres: child molester, felon, malingerer, alleged psychiatrist.: Appeal Update and other ScreedsDeep Soundinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15111463003069045187noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-1580408817239728912015-02-23T13:25:52.365-08:002015-02-23T13:25:52.365-08:00And also this comment:
Posted by Bruce
On the $2...And also this comment:<br /><br />Posted by Bruce<br /><br />On the $250 matter... I suspect that we may be splitting hairs even finer than quibbling over a $250 wrong vs prosecution costs:<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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?)Deep Soundinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111463003069045187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-1212854736935456432015-02-23T12:48:37.766-08:002015-02-23T12:48:37.766-08:00A poster named Optics just posted this excellent c...A poster named Optics just posted this excellent comment over at the Atherton Almanac:<br /> + 1 person likes thisPosted by Optics<br />a resident of Atherton: other <br />21 minutes ago<br />Right now we have DA Steve Wagstaffe prosecuting/persecuting Juan Lopez and his girlfriend over two issues:<br /><br />1. Lopez "probably" knew phones were being given to inmates in the jail.<br /><br />2. Lopez and his girlfriend misappropriated $250 of campaign donations.<br /><br />How much does it cost San Mateo County taxpayers to prosecute a case involving at best $250?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.almanacnews.com/square/2015/02/19/chronicle-story-deputy-lopezs-attorney-stuart-hanlon-accuses-da-wagstaffe-of-retaliating-against-lopes-for-running-against-sheriff-munks<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-85292254559187048782015-02-23T06:00:31.095-08:002015-02-23T06:00:31.095-08:00Juan Lopez's fiancé, Evelyn Chavez, has had he...Juan Lopez's fiancé, Evelyn Chavez, has had her share of encounters with Sheriff Munks. Munks clearly hasn't forgotten them. Many suspect Munks and Wagstaffe are going after her out of retaliation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-55545950631402053722015-02-22T22:33:18.740-08:002015-02-22T22:33:18.740-08:00Also, keep in mind: ayres had the opportunity to u...Also, keep in mind: ayres had the opportunity to use objective, less disputable methods such as brain scans over the course of several years, from the end of the first trial, when he began claiming dementia all the way through competency hearings, Napa, etc.. and on in to sentencing after his no contest plea in the second trial. <br /><br />If he had had access to such conclusive evidence, it would have been at least mentioned in all of the hearings, if not used as evidence on his behalf. <br /><br />There was never even any such discussion.Deep Soundinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111463003069045187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-86396955250512694932015-02-21T01:07:00.901-08:002015-02-21T01:07:00.901-08:00He's already had MRI with contrast, and the re...He's already had MRI with contrast, and the results were normal, as were the results of MMSE tests taken over time. <br /><br />Nobody can force him to have a brain scan. It is not constitutional.<br /><br />He has been convicted, and it is up to him to prove that he has been wrongfully convicted due to dementia. If he was truly demented, and had MRI results to back him, then he would surely already have produced such test results. <br /><br />Why would he do another MRI when it would only show that he is not incapacitated?<br /><br />He very well may be able to convince the appeals court that he has been inappropriately convicted <i><b>without</b></i> MRI.<br /><br />If so, then the appeals court would have no reason to compel MRI, and the conviction would probably be overturned, and the original court / prosecution would need to decide what to do next. <br /><br />If the molester can not convince them, then the appeal fails, and there is still no updated record (MRI) that shows that conditions are normal, which would work to is advantage should he need to use the demented excuse in the future.<br /><br />There is little likelihood that MRI will be done.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Deep Soundinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111463003069045187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-70207862004524510942015-02-20T23:18:02.865-08:002015-02-20T23:18:02.865-08:00The child molester still claims to have dementia /...The child molester still claims to have dementia / Alzheimer's disease (AD)?<br /><br />If he had dementia more than two years ago, by now he would have AD.<br /><br />The child molester should soon undergo an MRI brain scan WITH CONTRAST, which would put his claims to rest. Is there no one who can legally compel him to undergo such a scan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-2710159993468448842015-02-20T14:00:35.731-08:002015-02-20T14:00:35.731-08:00Yeah, I was thinking that sum seemed very high as ...Yeah, I was thinking that sum seemed very high as I read the article, but forgot to get back to it... In fact, according to the <a href="http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2014/06/02/munks-doesnt-campaign-but-committee-collects-donations" rel="nofollow">Almanac News</a> just the day before the election, Lopez wasn't even required to file a campaign finance report, because he had raised less than $1000. <br /><br />Wonder where the "reporters" got this information??<br /><br />OH, actually I don't wonder at all: The reporter just lies down on the ground, and Wagstaffe squats over them and shits the information right down their throat. The reporter then gobbles it up, and asks politely for more.<br /><br />Too graphic? Yeah... not so much, unfortunately. Deep Soundinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111463003069045187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-79881146002827399062015-02-20T12:50:51.361-08:002015-02-20T12:50:51.361-08:00In fact: Lopez only raised $500 for his election a...In fact: Lopez only raised $500 for his election and used $10,000 of his own money. So where did Wagstaffe come up with the $400,000 in election funds that he said Lopez misused for personal funds?<br /><br />Is Wagstaffe getting careless and sloppy? Looks like it.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-42611418125725366212015-02-20T12:17:40.516-08:002015-02-20T12:17:40.516-08:00So today's story in the Daily Journal and Alma...So today's story in the Daily Journal and Almanac News say that Lopez and his manager embezzled $400,000 of his campaign funds for personal use. There is not a chance in hell that Lopez, a write-in candidate who received so few votes raised that kind of money.<br /><br />Even Sheriff Munks in his re-election campaign didn't raise anywhere near that kind of money.<br /><br />http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/02/19/defense-attorney-accuses-da-of-vendetta-in-prosecution-of-sheriffs-deputy<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And yet here's how much Munks raised: <br />http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-05-24/election-journal/1776425123747.html<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-40370603136760151752015-02-20T11:57:12.529-08:002015-02-20T11:57:12.529-08:00Why did Wagstaffe hush up the horrifying crime com...Why did Wagstaffe hush up the horrifying crime committed by San Mateo Deputy Sheriff DJ Wozniak, who is now head of the Deputy Sheriff's association? Wagstaffe hid the crime from the press. Someone needs to speak to that victim of Wozniak and ask how they feel about Wagstaffe not charging Wozniak<br /><br />Everyone who works in the San Mateo Sheriff's office knows all about the Wozniak crime.<br /><br />Back in 2011, a reporter for the San Mateo County Times went up to Wozniak in the courthouse and asked him about the crime. Wozniak didn't act confused at all. He didn't stick around to ask the reporter any questions. All he said was, " I don't know what you are talking about" and took off like a bat out of hell down the hall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5166908879185923782.post-51440833352740116472015-02-20T11:06:24.310-08:002015-02-20T11:06:24.310-08:00Nice, Deep! Thank you!! I thought it was hilariou...Nice, Deep! Thank you!! I thought it was hilarious when Wagstaffe told the papers that he, personally, wouldn't be prosecuting Lopez's case- as if that meant that it would be all on the up and up. Everyone knows Wagstaffe is a micromanager who calls the shots. <br /><br />It is weird that he's so hands off when it comes to child molesters.... maybe it's a sore subject for him? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com