Deputies stand behind Munks

Deputies stand behind Munks

There are 47 comments on the Redwood City Daily News story from Apr 28, 2007, titled Deputies stand behind Munks. In it, Redwood City Daily News reports that:

The San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association has issued a statement supporting Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, who were caught in an embarrassing episode that found them at a Las Vegas ...
The San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association has issued a statement supporting Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos, who were caught in an embarrassing episode that found them at a Las Vegas brothel. <br/> <br/>"While the (association) certainly does not always agree with Sheriff Munks and Undersheriff Bolanos' decisions, we have found both to be proven and effective leaders," said the written statement from the union's executive board. <br/> <br/>The union, which represents more than 400 deputies, correctional officers and others, noted that the sheriff and undersheriff were traveling to Las Vegas on their own time and there is no proof so far they broke any laws. <br/> <br/>"We do not foresee these recent events affecting our ability to work effectively with Sheriff Munks and Undersheriff Bolanos. We remain confident in their abilities and leadership and we look forward to moving past this incident," the statement said. Union officials declined to elaborate Friday. <br/> <br/>The statement adds to a chorus of official voices in the county that has responded to the law enforcement officials' gaffe with praise for their integrity and abilities. Seven days after Munks and Bolanos were swept up in a police raid of illegal bordellos, there have been no calls by anyone in a position of power for an investigation into the facts surrounding the incident. <br/> <br/>Munks and Bolanos themselves have refused to answer questions about the circumstances of their visit to the brothel. Munks initially released a written statement apologizing and asserting that he mistakenly thought the brothel was "a legitimate business," but he will not say what type of business he thought it was. <br/> <br/>Instead, both the sheriff and undersheriff's offices have directed all questions to spokeswoman Lt. Lisa Williams, who has said she doesn't know details of the brothel incident. <br/> <br/>Board of Supervisors President Rose Jacobs-Gibson and Supervisor Jerry Hill are among those who have stood up for Munks and Bolanos, saying they don't see a need for further investigation of the Las Vegas issue. <br/> <br/>Two other supervisors - Rich Gordon and Mark Church - have said they're awaiting more information, and County Manager John Maltbie has asked the Controller's Office to see whether county funds helped pay for the trip to Las Vegas. <br/> <br/>But many more leaders - from state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) to California State Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Steve Szalay - have responded to the controversy with two words: "No comment." <br/> <br/>Las Vegas police say they have no plans to investigate whether Munks and Bolanos broke any laws at the brothel because their raid targeted only employees, not customers. They are looking into whether the brothels were part of an organized crime ring that smuggled women into the country from Asia and forced them to work as sex slaves. <br/> <br/>Officer Bill Cassell said his department will not discuss the results of its questioning of Munks and Bolanos other than to say they behaved cooperatively and professionally. "We are not going to extend the curiosity in this in any manner." <br/> <br/> <br/>E-mail Will Oremus at [email protected]
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Steve White boatbrain

AOL

#42 Aug 10, 2007
I was Googling around a bit about Steve Wagstaffe, and found an interesting appeals court decision regarding a man who shot his wife's dope dealer.

I think even if you are "law and order" perhaps especially if you are, you may be appalled by Wagstaffe's actions in this case.

According to the appeals court, the man's wife got on drugs, and started having an affair with her drug dealer. There was a bunch of conflict between the dealer and husband. Eventually, the husband shot the dealer. There was a claim of self defense, but it seem likely the man's lawyer did a very bad job in presenting that claim. In fact, Wagstaffe himself admitted to the appeals court that they were worried the man would win an appeal of his conviction based on his lawyer's incompetence.

So, they offered him a plea bargain for second segree murder, 15 to life sentence. He was an exemplary prisoner, and there was no reason not to give him parole after 15 (or maybe 17 years the judge added two years for using a firearm, but I am not sure when the man first became elegible for parole) but Wagstaffe oppposed it, and apparently gave the parole board a somewhat misleading account of the man's history to sell them on not giving parole.(said he had violated a restraining order his wife had, but in fact, she had paged him, they had children together, and his "violation" was returning her phone calls, and he was found "not guilty" of that.

To me, the DA's agreeing to a plea bargain which they knew allowed parole, then doing everything they could to defeat his parole, even though he qualified more than just about any prisoner, is essentially reneging on a bargain. And misleading them,(there was no proof it was done deliberately, but one has to think it probably was. Read the decision to see how it went down) so that the guy would not get parole is downright dishonest.

Those are the ethics of this man Wagstaffe, apparently. I have been forced to try to deal with his son, a DDA in Alameda County. The apple does not fall far from the tree in this case.

I think if the man did not get a fair trial because his attorney was incompetent, maybe the right action by the San Mateo County DA's office would have been to have another trial. This case by itself should sway the minds of some of the most hard-nosed anti crime folks. Please read it before you flame me:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q= cache:bAOaGT3BnCMJ:www.courtin fo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A10 8894.DOC+Steve+Wagstaffe&h l=en&ct=clnk&cd=10 &gl=us&ie=UTF-8

It is on a web page of published appeals court decisions, and I think the entire thing proves how littel compunction Wagstaffe, or others involved, feel to honor agreements they make.

If the link does not work, Cut and Paste it into your browser.
Steve White boatbrain

AOL

#43 Aug 10, 2007
My previous comment, including the link to that parole issue Steve Wagstaffe was involved in, seems to not be working. You can Google "Steve Wagstaffe" and "George Scott" to find it on the appeals court web page.
Steve White boatbrain

AOL

#44 Aug 14, 2007
I wanted tom make one more comment for anyone reading this.

The number two man in the DA's office, Steve Wagstaffe, was quoted as giving a very strong endorsement of Munks.

I think the people of the County should know, Wagstaffe was involved in trying to deny parole to a man who was convicted of killing his wife's drug dealer.

The man's name, if my memory is not fooling me, is George Scott. If you Google "Steve Wagstaffe" and "George Scott" you should see where an appeals court deals with Wagstaffe's bad faith attempts to keep the poor guy in prison after almost twenty years.

It shows you what kind of guy you are dealing with in Wagstaffe. Very Law and Order, unless it's a law man who is in trouble. Then he's quite compassionate.

I think many people, even "law and order" types, will be shocked to see how much Wagstaffe took out after this basically good guy who could not handle what was going on.

And shocked ot see how Wagstaffe gave bad info to the parole board.

And shocked to see how readily Wagstaffe reneged on the plea bargain his own office had made with the man.

Please look it up.
Lisa

Stanford, CA

#45 Aug 23, 2007
RW Kenny wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not like Chenney supporting Bush but nice try moron.
Yeah.. more like a dork supporting a loser

Doofus
Pam in Redwood City

San Francisco, CA

#46 Aug 23, 2007
Give me a break. It's totally stupid to bring your little CHENEY and Bush into this. Cut the crap and stick to the issue.
I KNOW YOU

Oakland, CA

#47 Feb 24, 2011
Steve white stalked his divorce judge for 15 years?, went and took her underwear after she was dead and kept them. he admits in open court he molested his 7?? year old sister, held her down and raped her when he was 7 years older. currently lives at 21174 oceanview dr Hayward CA.
in my view
It's very sad a person like this thinks they should judge the faults in others, but its nothing about the DA, the Sherriff or anything but the fact his wife aborted his child and then was stalked herself,shge left the country eventually.

I wish I could be on a continent away from Steve White.
Doctor Frank

Palo Alto, CA

#48 Mar 19, 2011
Moderator: The post by "I KNOW YOU" is slanderous. Flagged.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Redwood City Daily News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Breaching Camp Glenwood: a medium security faci... (Aug '08) Jan '15 Another Former De... 28
Want Free Vocational Training? (Aug '07) Oct '14 Eugene Dean 2
Redwood City History "Add Facts, Memories & Tho... (Sep '08) Apr '14 Stormy Steigman 27
Redwood City Shooting from 11/8/07 in RWC (Nov '07) Apr '14 RWC descent 111
New Sam Trans Bus Stops (Mar '14) Mar '14 Angry Alamedian 1
News BREAKING NEWS: Triple homicide in Redwood City ... (Jun '08) Feb '14 Goodbye RWC 130
Downtown Redwood City Gang Banger problem (Apr '08) Feb '14 Goodbye RWC 170
More from around the web