Town Square

Post a New Topic

Wagstaffe gets taken to the Woodshed

Original post made by rapid fire, Menlo Park: other, on May 1, 2010

Ex Atherton Finance Director John Johns got the stiff arm from the DA in response to his request for a copy of the investigative report prepared by the DA over a criminal complaint filed by Johns.

In the letter below, Johns takes Wagstaffe and Chief Investigator John Warren to the woodshed and for good measure.

This e-mail is a quite entertaining read:

++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Warren

I am in receipt of your refusal to produce a copy of your investigative report pertaining to my criminal complaint on the part of certain elected and appointed officials in Atherton.

You have cited California Government Code Section 6254(f) and Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337 California Supreme Court as the authority for doing so.

I have read the citations you have provided me with. If I am not mistaken the exemptions you cite do not provide your office with absolute or all encompassing exemption from disclosure. Instead said exemption is limited to information such as the analysis in support of conclusions rendered by the investigating officer.

The following text from the Supreme Court's opinion you cited would appear to be on point:

From Page 17 of accessible via the following link: Web Link
Agencies must make additional disclosures to interested persons, who include "the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident ...." (§ 6254, subd. (f), 1st par.)
These additional required disclosures include "the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, [and] the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants ...."And
And from Page 20 (FN 12) of the same link cited above:
We do not interpret the CPRA as giving the custodian of law enforcement records unreviewable power to decide whether subdivision (f) requires the disclosure of particular items of information from such records. While section 6259 expressly mentions only the court's power to "order the public official to make the record public" (§ 6254, subd. (b), italics added), that greater power necessarily includes the lesser. Otherwise, the statutory right of access to information from law enforcement records would be meaningless.
I will therefore rephrase my public records request as follows:

As an interested party, to the criminal complaint I followed, including but not limited to economic damages I have sustained as a result of the illegal actions of certain elected and appointed officials and their efforts to conceal said actions, I request that you provide all information that is subject to disclosure pursuant as it pertains to the investigation purportedly conducted by your office

Mr. Warren, let me be blunt. I do not believe Mr. Grosshauser has been honest when he stated in his letter, that he "thoroughly" investigated my allegations.

Mr. Warren, let me be even more blunt. I believe that Mr. Grosshauser telling a great big fat lie.

Mr. Warren, let me be even more blunt, if Mr. Grosshauser reported in the form of hours worked on his timesheet that he was as "thorough" as he says he was in his letter to me, then I would respectfully submit that there is a very real possibility that a crime has occurred right under your nose, that being a violation of California PC 424 (theft of public resources).

Call it suspicion or professional skepticism on the part of a veteran auditor. For all I know Mr. Grosshauser was sleeping under a tree somewhere on a pleasant autumn afternoon when he told you he was tracking down leads on my case.

For all I know, it is entirely possible that Mr. Grosshauser falsified his timesheet when and if he reported spending time investigating my criminal complaint.

For all I know it is possible that Mr. Grosshauser may very well be doing what I was accused of doing, that being running a consulting business on the side and working on his outside business on County time and with County property.

I am not accusing Mr. Grosshauser of being a criminal mind you. However I would like to learn more about how Mr. Grosshauser spends his time. The list of those involved is long and distinguished and the allegations much more serious than the theft of an iPhone (even the latest and greatest iPhone Apple Computer has to offer). Hence I would have expected Mr. Grosshauser to have devoted considerable time to this case if this case was taken seriously by your office.

For the reasons stated above, please consider this to be an amended form of my earlier public records request, or an entirely new one, whichever you prefer.

Pursuant to the California Public Records act, please provide me with copies of the following documentation regarding my criminal complaint to your office:
The names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident,
The description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident,
All diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, [and] the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants.
I would also ask that you provide me with copies of any timesheets submitted by Mr. Ivan Grosshauser or management reports which indicate the dates, times and hours worked while conducting his criminal investigation in response to my complaint.
I would also ask that for those dates and times which Mr. Grosshauser worked on my criminal complaint, that copies of his cell phone bill for the months in question be provided as well.
Please respond to this request within 10 days.
Thank you very much.

John P. Johns, CPA

Comments (5)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by code blue
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 1, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Good job John!---but your request should have been more appropiately addressed
To: "Those of you who matter" which has been established already as the the customary way they proudly refer to each other and prefer to be regarded---at least in their e-mails to each other.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael Stogner
a resident of another community
on May 1, 2010 at 5:47 pm

Good memory Code Blue.

Here is copy of Steve Wagstaffe's e-mail.

e-mail sent 4/25/07 10:20 AM
Greg and Carlos
Just a quick word of support from me as you go through a difficult time. To those who matter, your decades of outstanding work in law enforcement are all that count and your integrity is not the slightest marked by the modern media's efforts to make a story out of a non-story. Hard as it is to think it now, remember it will be yesterday's news and irrelevant by tomorrow.

My positive thoughts are out there for both of you.
Steve


 +   Like this comment
Posted by love is blind
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 1, 2010 at 8:28 pm

There must be no bond greater than Wagstaffe and a cop, any cop.

There is ample evidence of such:

Jon Buckheit had his request for a declaration of factual innocense opposed by the DA.

John Johns underwent an investigation for nine months in response to a request from Chief Brennan to John Warren

Troy Henderson was tried on a misdemeanor count of battery where the evidence is a silent video where it is impossible to tell whether it is Henderson or the police officer who accused him was the agressor.

Steve Wagstaffe sent his pals Bolanos and Munks a sympathetic e-mail after they get caught (literally) with their pants down.

It is a pity that nobody is running against him.

It is to the credit of the community that people like Johns, Buckheit and Stogner are willing to take him on.

Wagstaffe will go down. There is federal civli rights litigation ongoing where our good ole boy Wagstaffe is a defendant. When word spreads of this lawsuit, people who have been abused by Wagstaffe will pile on as though it were a game of rugby. Wagstaffe will be at the bottom of the pile, gasping for air.

Soon it will be Munks and Bolanos who are the ones sending Wagstaffe a note of sympathy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by code blue
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 4, 2010 at 8:43 am

Please Post the FOIA request response to this letter for readers to see when it comes--
5 more days by law I believe.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael Stogner
a resident of another community
on May 4, 2010 at 9:37 pm

John Johns did something the District Attorney didn't expect.

He read the government code and cases they cited.

San Mateo County has been doing this for a long time, they just plain make stuff up.

They lie its no secret that is why I have been asking the BOS for oversight for over 8 years.

Good Job John,

Welcome to San Mateo County


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

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,647 views

Charter School Proposal Steeped In Unintended Consequences
By Erin Glanville | 55 comments | 2,237 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,454 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,408 views

Measure M-- I am not drinking Greenheart’s expensive potion
By Martin Lamarque | 26 comments | 819 views