Town Square

Post a New Topic

Candidate says he questioned sheriff about Vegas incident

Original post made on May 22, 2014

For Greg Munks, the sheriff of San Mateo County and the incumbent in the June 3 election for his third four-year term, one question refuses to go away.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 22, 2014, 9:03 AM

Comments (18)

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on May 22, 2014 at 10:56 am

This event took place at CSM not Redwood Shores.

Like this comment
Posted by 2fer
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on May 22, 2014 at 11:02 am

Ambushed at, and disrupting an event about gun violence in schools?

For a certain crowd, that's a two-fer.

Like this comment
Posted by Not ambushed
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 22, 2014 at 11:27 am


Taking the Sheriff aside and asking him the question politely and quietly and NOT in front of an audience is not being ambushed.

May I remind you that it is the taxpayers who pay Mr. Munks' salary and as he has NEVER answered questions from the taxpayers on this matter, Mr. De Paula had EVERY right as a citizen to ask this question. It would be one thing if Munks had answered it ad nauseam but he never has.

Munks' comment "How DARE you ask me that question? "is despicable and disingenuous.

Munks also refused to answer the same sort of question from a woman and taxpayer at a relevant conference on human trafficking. When she asked him if he thought he was the right person to head up the anti- human trafficking unit because of his own brothel experience, he refused to answer.

So tell me: at what time and point would Mr. Munks NOT consider the question as ambushing him? Do you mean to say that if the time and place were right for him- when he didn't feel he was being ambushed, he would answer the question? You know he wouldn't.

Why hasn't he answered it for seven years ? May I remind you that he is an ELECTED official and he broke the law - a law his deputies arrest other men for breaking.

Your anger at people who pay his salary for asking honest questions is misdirected. It should be at Munks for breaking the law and then mishandling the aftermath and making his wife and children and the citizens of San Mateo to suffer.

Although I despise former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, at least he was man enough to resign after being caught doing the same thing he was prosecuting other men for.

A real adult takes responsibility for his actions. The taxpayers have a right to answers instead of being attacked with arrogant "How dare you?" questions. Really, who does Munks think he is?

Like this comment
Posted by 2fer
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on May 22, 2014 at 11:44 am

>Your anger at people who pay his salary

Say whaaa??? What the heck are you reading that supports that ridiculous statement?

Like this comment
Posted by Not ambushed
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 22, 2014 at 11:50 am

2Fer, or - is it "Mr. Barnes?" : Please take responsibility for your words. You used the word "ambushed", not I. You've been attacking those of us who want Mr. Munks to answer the questions, for a couple of weeks now. When someone calls you on it, your pattern is to deny that you are doing it.

Later, Mr. Barnes.

Like this comment
Posted by 2fer
a resident of Portola Valley: Portola Valley Ranch
on May 22, 2014 at 11:58 am

Ambush -- a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position

Anger -- a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility

As to your other fantasies, dude, get off the net and get outside and talk to some real people.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on May 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

Mr. De Paula, when the Almanac asked him what he would do if elected supervisor, he said he would ask for Mr. Munks' resignation.

Wow that makes two out of four candidates, I asked the Sheriif for his resignation May 14, 2007

and Carole Groom wished for it in 2008 interview. 1 year later.

Like this comment
Posted by Downtowner
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Mr Munks has never 'fessed up about this. There are many legitimate places for massages in Las Vegas, including outcall service arranged by hotels, but no visitor would have mistaken the place where the raid occurred for anything legit. The house was in a rundown-to-seedy residential neighborhood in suburban outskirts, well-known to locals as a brothel. I have a close relative in the District Attorney's office there and asked at the time if this could have been an innocent mistake by a couple of visiting yokels. Answer: "Not possible."

Like this comment
Posted by Not ambushed
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Honorable and brave Sheriffs with nothing to hide don't hide behind emailing when dealing with reporters. They speak to reporters directly. But Munks is too afraid of the Almanac reporter asking him a direct question about Operation Dollhouse, as the Daily Post reporter did a couple of years ago. He's a coward.

Like this comment
Posted by Carl
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on May 22, 2014 at 2:27 pm

I wonder just what kind of massage Mr. Munks was seeking in LV.

He obviously feels he's buried his past. How he handles the story now speaks volumes about him.

Like this comment
Posted by Not Ambushed
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm

Did Sheriff Munks actually describe De Paula's actions as "Just a guy pulling a sophomoric campaign stunt ?"

That really takes the cake for hubris. Not even Anthony Weiner stooped that low.

Honorable Sheriffs don't go into brothels, but if they're caught, they admit they transgressed. They don't blame others for asking questions about their behavior. Now, that kind of behavior is sophomoric.

Like this comment
Posted by sareiss
a resident of Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on May 22, 2014 at 3:15 pm

What speaks "volumes" about Sheriff Greg Munks is the work he has done over the many years he has served in his position. And for those of you who don't know Greg, he is a wonderful father, husband and friend. He is a decent and thoughtful person who deserves a respectful discussion about his abilities.

Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 22, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.


there's an old saying, One aw sh** wipes out a thousand atta boys. for good reason. Especially in this case. If this were some non-law enforcement person that had visited an under age brothel you MIGHT be able to argue that what he has done in his job matters more than his transgression. The problem is that Munks is the head of the county law enforcement organization. As such he and his deputies are held to a higher standard or they should be. Munks has never taken responsibility for his breaking the law. That fact makes it even worse. As others have stated he needs to man up and take responsibility for what he did. Until he does folks like me are going to continue to ask questions about why he's still in the position of Sheriff.

Like this comment
Posted by Lamont
a resident of another community
on May 22, 2014 at 11:18 pm

Lamont is a registered user.

I read a February 12, 2014 report quoting San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe saying his office is prosecuting five people in connection with two separate human trafficking operations discovered in the county last year. Wagstaff said, in those cases, six young women were forced into sexual slavery and were threatened, beaten and kept in bondage so they wouldn't escape.

I learned in the May 10th county workshop on sex trafficking that dollar wise, this is the second biggest crime in the US.

This is not about a private matter of betrayal of his wife by the sheriff. Rather, it is about a sheriff who, by being a customer, aided and abetted a vicious criminal enterprise. No one believes his claims that he thought the place was a legitimate business. Jackie Speier commenting on his claim said "The voters of San Mateo are not naive and not stupid."

Munks' acts demonstrated he is unfit to be a law office in our county. He makes a mockery of the integrity of law enforcement.

A newspaper got hold of the email Wagstaffe sent to Munks, calling Munks a man of integrity, and saying that "To those who matter" Munks' behavior would have no effect on his job.

Wagstaffe's comments show contempt for the ordinary citizen. Wagstaffe forfeits our trust and respect by this comment. He too, is unfit.

Well, voters have wanted to get rid of Munks for years. Now that Juan Lopez is running against him, all we have to do his tell everybody that Munks is opposed and write in Juan Lopez on our ballot.

We can omit to mark an "X" for Wagstaffe, too. If he gets substantially fewer voters than other unopposed candidates it can hasten his departure.

Like this comment
Posted by Holly L.
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 23, 2014 at 6:04 am

Holly L. is a registered user.

Here's a wry column written about the Munks scandal back in 2007. As the author points out, if Munks believed he was going into a legitimate business, " Columbo, he ain't. " The author also states that in a poll, 83 % of San Mateo residents thought that Munks should seek a new line of work.Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Dec 5, 2014 at 9:31 am

Michael G. Stogner is a registered user.

a couple of corrections.

"April night in 2007 when Las Vegas police and federal agents found them on the premises of a brothel."

Not on….Sheriff Greg Munks was IN the private residence which was an illegal brothel staffed by Human Trafficked Sex Slaves (some underaged)

That is a violation of San Mateo County Sheriff's Office General Orders:
2-01 3(F) Employees shall not commit or attempt to commit any act which is a violation of any State, Federal, County or City law, ordinance or regulation. Members also shall not engage in any activity or behavior which will bring discredit upon the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office.

Like this comment
Posted by Mark De Paula
a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 am

Mark De Paula is a registered user.

Federal authorities found the operators of this sex slave house guilty, why not the Johns?
Sheriff Munks & Undersheriff Bolanos were detained, but not charged.
The Court of Public Opinion --no time limit.

Like this comment
Posted by Mark De Paula
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2015 at 6:57 pm

Mark De Paula is a registered user.

Anyone know how the F.B.I. handles John's when caught in sex slave houses?

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Vina Enoteca to serve first 'Impossible burger' in Silicon Valley
By Elena Kadvany | 22 comments | 9,453 views

Coupon for Yourself and Your Partner
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 3,564 views

Housing Impact Fees and the Economy
By Steve Levy | 5 comments | 1,427 views

Planning for College Tours
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 814 views


2017 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The 2017 Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here