|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
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: What were he and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos doing on an April night in 2007 when Las Vegas police and federal agents found them on the premises of a brothel located in an unmarked house in a residential neighborhood?
Mr. Munks answered that question at the time with a statement that he has not publicly elaborated upon: that he had been seeking a massage after a relay run and that he “believed (he) was going into a legitimate business.”
The raid on the brothel, referred to by federal agents as Operation Dollhouse, netted seven arrests, though not of customers, and 3,500 tabs of ecstasy and $20,000 in cash. Mr. Munks and Mr. Bolanos were detained and questioned, then released. The subsequent investigation looked into whether the prostitutes were working as sex slaves, a Las Vegas officer said at the time.
If Mr. Munks was wounded by that experience, the wound may have reopened April 29 while he was attending an invitation-only conference in Redwood Shores on the subject of gun violence in schools.
The question to Sheriff Munks came from Mark De Paula, a resident of San Mateo who is challenging incumbent Supervisor Carole Groom in the election for county supervisor for District 2.
It was a question Mr. De Paula said he’d heard while campaigning. “I had a quite a few people ask me about the Munks situation and whether he was exonerated by the FBI,” he told the Almanac. “I wanted to hear it directly from him.”
The conference had not yet started, Mr. DePaula said, when he noticed Mr. Munks socializing in the seating area. He said he walked up to Mr. Munks, introduced himself, said he had a question, and proposed that they step away from the gathering, which they did. Mr. De Paula said he asked Mr. Munks if the FBI had exonerated him in the Operation Dollhouse incident.
According to Mr. De Paula, Mr. Munks replied to his question with a question of his own: “How dare you ask that question here?” Mr. Munks then alluded to his reason for being there: to discuss gun violence in schools.
Mr. De Paula said he followed up. “Sheriff Munks,” he said, “I’m just asking you a yes or no question.”
Mr. De Paula said the sheriff then re-examined Mr. De Paula’s name tag and asked him who he was and what his name was, then walked over to Capt. Mark Wyss of the Sheriff’s Office and said: “This guy probably doesn’t belong here.”
Asked to comment, Capt. Wyss told the Almanac that he had nothing more to say about the incident than what he told another newspaper, which was that he did not remember the sheriff saying that Mr. De Paula probably did not belong at the event.
Mr. De Paula said he attempted to calm things down, to “neutralize it. I had a little bit of butterflies in my stomach.” He said that he walked to the lobby with Capt. Wyss and repeated that he had been looking for a yes or no answer and that he was surprised that Mr. Munks did not have a prepared answer seven years after the event.
The Almanac attempted to get Mr. Munks’ account of the incident with Mr. De Paula, but he was not available for an interview. In an email, however, Mr. Munks commented: “Just a guy pulling a sophomoric campaign stunt at an inappropriate time and place,” he wrote. “The real story is the important work of that day focusing on the problem of school shootings and what we can do as a community to prevent/respond and recover from them.”
As for Mr. De Paula, when the Almanac asked him what he would do if elected supervisor, he said he would ask for Mr. Munks’ resignation.
This event took place at CSM not Redwood Shores.
Ambushed at, and disrupting an event about gun violence in schools?
For a certain crowd, that’s a two-fer.
2Fer:
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?
>Your anger at people who pay his salary
Say whaaa??? What the heck are you reading that supports that ridiculous statement?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
sareiss:
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.
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.
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.http://m.reviewjournal.com/john-l-smith/california-sheriffs-massage-explanation-has-nice-touch-alibis-go
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.
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.
Anyone know how the F.B.I. handles John’s when caught in sex slave houses?