Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Jul 8, 2012 at 7:13 am

If their supervisor reported "directly " to the DA's office, as this article states, then why did Wagstaffe tell a Mercury News reporter the following:

Web Link

Wagstaffe said the district attorney's office itself didn't have anything to do with the Public Administrator program, but he plans to investigate how the alleged crimes occurred.

________

Can the Almanac clear up his conflicting statements?

Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Jul 8, 2012 at 10:30 am

This was predictable, the Board of Supervisors have been notified and warned for at least 10 years about the corruption at the highest level of the District Attorneys Office. I personally have been with three citizens who spoke about this subject to the board on this subject over the years.

Lurker, brings up an excellent point, and it is pretty simple to understand. Steve Wagstaffe didn't tell the truth to the reporter, The Supervisors couldn't care less.

Wagstaffe said the district attorney's office itself didn't have anything to do with the Public Administrator program,

A murder conviction case was reversed because of Mr. Wagstaffe's personal behavior, here is what one of three Judges said about him.

Hon. Judge Marsha Berzon " The prosecutor's (Steve Wagstaffe) asserted concern about objectivity was not an actual reason for his decision to strike (the juror), but was pretext,"

pretext

noun

a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason....

Most of us ordinary citizens would consider pretext and lie to be the same.

Posted by GOLLY, a resident of another community, on Jul 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm

That means a member or members on the Board of Supervisors could have been involved in nefarious doings.

This has long been the view or rumored officials who were in the "pockets" of big business and particularly of property brokers.

Some have moved on to even higher offices not expecting the collapse of Wall St.

One name along with some of his cronies (yes, a rumored male Supervisor)and his department employees who all looked the other way and are no longer visible like they were.

How can anyone in this day, not be a possible corrupt politico?

The IRS is not downsizing its investigators for the Silicon Valley and its environs.

Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm

GOLLY = R Gordon

Mr Gordon:

why don't you just post under your usual nom de plume? We all know it's you.