Woman Killed in San Mateo, Driver not named. [Archive] - San Mateo Daily Journal

Michael Stogner

10-07-2006, 07:53 AM

10/03/06 Wednesday night approx 7:45 PM, a woman was killed while walking in a crosswalk in downtown San Mateo, Ca.

Her name was Man Ching Cheung, age 35, female. from Burnaby, British Columbia.

The name of the driver is known to the Police Department because the victim had to be removed from under the car. The name of the driver does not show up in any news article sofar. Why?

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_278022103.html

http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/1153801586332776981317053942574166029474

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/05/BAGIDLIRGE7.DTL

Tommy

10-07-2006, 08:36 AM

And there was probably a SOBE bottle under the driver's seat..

Roscoe_Beedle

10-07-2006, 09:05 AM

Did Edith Delgado make bail?

Sub Rosa

10-07-2006, 03:48 PM

Maybe the driver was a minor?

Michael Stogner

10-07-2006, 06:10 PM

Maybe the driver was a minor?

That is a possibility, and when a minor is involved the police tell the reporters that they will not name the driver because he/she is a minor.

No such statement has been issed by the San Mateo Police Department

GHafez7

10-07-2006, 09:12 PM

That is a possibility, and when a minor is involved the police tell the reporters that they will not name the driver because he/she is a minor.

No such statement has been issed by the San Mateo Police Department

Who cares what the name of the driver is? Its not our business. Its the court system's and the victims familys' business, but not the public's.

Diamond Dog

10-18-2006, 08:36 AM

Who cares what the name of the driver is? Its not our business. Its the court system's and the victims familys' business, but not the public's.

Court record = public record

Except in the totalitarian state you wish you live in.

GHafez7

10-20-2006, 10:54 PM

Court record = public record

Except in the totalitarian state you wish you live in.

No, its just not my business, nor yours for that matter, about what the name of the driver is. You libs and your so-called "need to know."

Marko

10-30-2006, 12:39 PM

No, its just not my business, nor yours for that matter, about what the name of the driver is. You libs and your so-called "need to know."

Nice jab! The Repubs sure don't need to know much, eh?

Freedom of information regarding criminal charges and events isn't for any one side, it's a basis of our system...you trying to make it political is quite amusing, so maybe just keep listening to Rush and Savage and let them do your thinking from now on, okay?

What if someone said "You Republicans and improper relationships with House pages" ? Oh wait, there WAS some truth to that, let me come up with a better one

GHafez7

11-05-2006, 02:20 PM

Nice jab! The Repubs sure don't need to know much, eh?

Freedom of information regarding criminal charges and events isn't for any one side, it's a basis of our system...you trying to make it political is quite amusing, so maybe just keep listening to Rush and Savage and let them do your thinking from now on, okay?

What if someone said "You Republicans and improper relationships with House pages" ? Oh wait, there WAS some truth to that, let me come up with a better one

Still haven't answered my question. Why do you need to know? What personal stake do you have in the event? If you are related to the victim or the defendent, fine. But why do you need to know who the defendent is if you're not staked in the case?

Michael Stogner

11-06-2006, 07:53 AM

Still haven't answered my question. Why do you need to know? What personal stake do you have in the event? If you are related to the victim or the defendent, fine. But why do you need to know who the defendent is if you're not staked in the case?

There is no defendent in this case, there is no case. there is just a 35 year old woman killed in the cross-walk so far. There might not be a defendant ever it is possible that this was just a tragic accident

Sometimes the law enforcement industry does something called professional curtesy/favors for people of influence. That is they leave the name of the driver out of a story such as this, or they do not proceed with the prosecution recommendation to the DA'S office like the case of our County Manager after he was arrested in 1993 for soliciting oral sex from a Sheriff decoy...in a STING OPERATION for that very reason.
Trisha Sanchez was that decoy.
District Attorney James P. Fox stated "that case never crossed my desk." as the reason he did not file charges against John Maltbie.

Without the public knowing the names of people involved in these events, it makes corruption that much easier. No Oversight.

Roscoe_Beedle

11-06-2006, 10:54 AM

Michael:

I was floored by this John Maltbie case. Do you have more information on this? Did this really happen? This one I just got to know about....

Diamond Dog

11-06-2006, 08:07 PM

Still haven't answered my question. Why do you need to know? What personal stake do you have in the event? If you are related to the victim or the defendent, fine. But why do you need to know who the defendent is if you're not staked in the case?

I guess I'll try. And save your liberal bashing for someone who is actually a liberal. I'm a conservative.

Anyways, why is that info relevant to me? Frankly, I don't care who it was. But I do understand the reason why such matters, as well as birth & deaths, crimes, etc, are matters of public record. We are all part of this fabric of society and it is important that when the fabric of society is in some way affected, everyone gets an opportunity to be privvy to it.

Michael Stogner

11-08-2006, 05:26 PM

Michael:

I was floored by this John Maltbie case. Do you have more information on this? Did this really happen? This one I just got to know about....

Roscoe, you can contact Reporter Jean Whitney of the Palo Alto Daily News, she is the reporter who got the above mentioned quote from Jim Fox.

Mr. Jim Fox's reply equals him saying that the Sheriff's Department did not recommend charges."That case never crossed my desk."

"Jean Whitney" <jean@paloaltodailynews.com>

Of course this really happened, do you think I'd risk writting something this serious if it weren't TRUE. I wouldn't.

NOTE: Trisha Sanchez is currently the highest ranking female Sheriff Deputy San Mateo County has, she is in charge of Maguire Jail Facility.

wilburt

11-08-2006, 10:28 PM

If it is true that DA Fox refused to prosecute his fellow County worker, County Manager Maltbie, after Maltbie was (allegedly) arrested for criminal activity in San Mateo County, shouldn't the FBI be contacted to look into this? If DA Fox is covering up and/or refusing to prosecute the crimes of fellow County employees or "people of influence" allegedly committed in the County of San Mateo, then DA Fox is himself engaging in criminal activity. However, unless the FBI looked into this, it would be almost impossible to prove that DA Fox engaged in this type of criminal activity.

I certainly hope that this is not true.

================================================== ===
Michael Stogner wrote:

"Sometimes the law enforcement industry does something called professional curtesy/favors for people of influence. That is they leave the name of the driver out of a story such as this, or they do not proceed with the prosecution recommendation to the DA'S office like the case of our County Manager after he was arrested in 1993 for soliciting oral sex from a Sheriff decoy...in a STING OPERATION for that very reason.
Trisha Sanchez was that decoy.
District Attorney James P. Fox stated "that case never crossed my desk." as the reason he did not file charges against John Maltbie."

Roscoe_Beedle

11-08-2006, 11:52 PM

I actually did find some more information on this Maltbie matter. It seems they could not prosecute because a tape recording of the verbal exchange was "lost". Now I am very suspicious. Apprently five other deputies working this sting operation heard the exchange between Maltbie and the deputy/decoy who was wired for sound. They recall the verbal exchange. Yet someone felt there wasn't enough evidence to bring the matter to the DA.

And the tape was missing. Do you think the tape would be missing if YOU were caught in that operation?

This is awful. This guy Maltbie should have been demoted or fired outright. Yet he is always portrayed in such reverent respectful tones.

wilburt

11-09-2006, 07:43 AM

This is interesting. If there were 5 sworn law enforcement officers working this "sting" operation who overheard the alleged conversation, you don't need the tape. All you need is their sworn affidavits attesting to what they heard. If what you are saying is true, this case should have been prosecuted. Especially in view of the fact that the alleged perpetrator holds such a high position of responsibility in government. This person should be held to a higher, not lower, standard of justice.

As far as the loss of the tape is concerned, it would be interesting to research the "chain of custody" of this tape to see who had it last, who had access to the tape, and under what circumstances the tape disappeared.

Speaking as an outsider, my observation is that there are a lot of people in the upper ranks of San Mateo's County Government who have held their positions of power for a long time and have become entrenched in their seat of power. Kind of like the Republicans in Washington. This is usually not a good situation for any government to find itself in.

==============================================
I actually did find some more information on this Maltbie matter. It seems they could not prosecute because a tape recording of the verbal exchange was "lost". Now I am very suspicious. Apprently five other deputies working this sting operation heard the exchange between Maltbie and the deputy/decoy who was wired for sound. They recall the verbal exchange. Yet someone felt there wasn't enough evidence to bring the matter to the DA.

And the tape was missing. Do you think the tape would be missing if YOU were caught in that operation?

This is awful. This guy Maltbie should have been demoted or fired outright. Yet he is always portrayed in such reverent respectful tones.

Michael Stogner

11-09-2006, 08:27 AM

This is interesting. If there were 5 sworn law enforcement officers working this "sting" operation who overheard the alleged conversation, you don't need the tape. All you need is their sworn affidavits attesting to what they heard. If what you are saying is true, this case should have been prosecuted. Especially in view of the fact that the alleged perpetrator holds such a high position of responsibility in government. This person should be held to a higher, not lower, standard of justice.

As far as the loss of the tape is concerned, it would be interesting to research the "chain of custody" of this tape to see who had it last, who had access to the tape, and under what circumstances the tape disappeared.

Speaking as an outsider, my observation is that there are a lot of people in the upper ranks of San Mateo's County Government who have held their positions of power for a long time and have become entrenched in their seat of power. Kind of like the Republicans in Washington. This is usually not a good situation for any government to find itself in.

==============================================

San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Trisha Sanchez was wearing the wire. We could ask her what was said. What happened to the arrest record? Does the Sheriff's Department show that John Maltbie was even arrested in 1993 or did they lose that also? Did they lose the tapes of the other people arrested during that STING? or just John Maltbie's.

Note. John Maltbie just provided a $1,400,000.00 OVERTIME BUDGET for the Sheriff.You might recall the Sheriff Don Horsley had comented in advance that he was getting the $1.4M. Supervisor Rich Gordon was the only person who questioned it. Thank You to Rich Gordon

Michael Stogner

11-09-2006, 08:55 AM

Roscoe,

Are you able to get the names of those five sworn officers?

Was one of the 5 Trisha Sanchez, we know what her position is today.

I would like to know what positions are held by the other 4 and possibly 5.

Roscoe_Beedle

11-09-2006, 10:54 AM

I'm trying, but the age of this thing could be the problem.

Marko

11-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Maltbie deserves the same consideration that any person would get, if evidence was lost then he's off...plus, has anyone thought that the "evidence" might not have been compelling/enough?

Michael Stogner

11-09-2006, 01:46 PM

Maltbie deserves the same consideration that any person would get, if evidence was lost then he's off...plus, has anyone thought that the "evidence" might not have been compelling/enough?

Marko, What are your thoughts about Wilburt's post:

5 Sworn Sheriff Deputies affidavits, no need to have the tape?

So even with the tape lost, should be enough to prosecute.

Roscoe_Beedle

11-09-2006, 05:22 PM

Yes, Marko, if the evidence was lost or missing then he gets off. I agree. But this does not close the issue he created by his actions. He has refused all comments on the matter. Why wouldn't he flat out deny it if not go after the Sherrif Department if false? And the statements by those involved. They traced his car after he suddenly fled the scene (got suspicious) and the agents tracked him via his license plate.

He was there, at the location with a decoy/prostitute. Do you think he was making a deposit for the County?

I am most disturbed that this matter was carefully paved over. This dirtbag will soon retire to a life time pension paid by the law abiding citizenry. And what about the other people arrested for the same offense? Would they understand the Maltbie case? They won't, and neither should you.

And I don't think this Maltbie just did this once. He made a statement to the decoy that "...I've been hassled before. Get in!". What does this mean? Has he a prior arrest record for this blow job urge?

Michael Stogner

11-10-2006, 09:06 AM

Michael Stogner

11-10-2006, 06:58 PM

According to San Jose Mercury News Article: April 29, 1993
by S.L.Wykes and David Bank Mercury News Staff Writers.

OFFICIAL ACCUSED OF SOLICITING POLICE DECOY

The John Maltbie case did cross District Attorney James P. Fox’s desk.

“District Attorney Jim Fox said Wednesday that the conversation between Maltbie, 46 and the decoy officer did not show the specific intent to request sex in exchange for money that the prosecutors need to press charges.”

How would Jim Fox know that if that case never crossed his desk?

Did he hear that information from the TAPE before it was erased?

Did he hear that from the TAPE that was lost?

Roscoe_Beedle

11-10-2006, 09:58 PM

Michael Stogner

11-12-2006, 09:04 AM

SAN MATEO COUNTY MANAGER ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT...John Maltbie, County Manager for San Mateo County for the past 15 years, has announced his retirement in March 2005.

August 19, 2005
SAN MATEO COUNTY MANAGER DECIDES TO STAY...San Mateo County Manager John Maltbie has changed his mind: He will not retire as previously planned.

wilburt

11-13-2006, 07:06 PM

Who is responsible for overseeing this guy? I wonder what
the legal or political process is that has to be accessed in
order to remove Maltbie from office?

================================================
SAN MATEO COUNTY MANAGER ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT...John Maltbie, County Manager for San Mateo County for the past 15 years, has announced his retirement in March 2005.

August 19, 2005
SAN MATEO COUNTY MANAGER DECIDES TO STAY...San Mateo County Manager John Maltbie has changed his mind: He will not retire as previously planned.

Michael Stogner

11-14-2006, 07:38 AM

Who is responsible for overseeing this guy? I wonder what
the legal or political process is that has to be accessed in
order to remove Maltbie from office?

================================================
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are responsible for oversight of the County Manager John Maltbie. He is not an elected official.

The entire BOS is very aware of John Maltbie's behavior, so far only one member of the board questions him and that is Rich Gordon.

I have to ask: Is there a moral clause in his contract? That should be enough to have him removed. The other question is why wouldn't the BOS want him removed? This is where Jim Fox comes into play. NO CHARGES in 1993!

Michael Stogner

11-20-2006, 12:36 PM

Board Unanimously Support Maltbie's Request

For Immediate Release
Contact: Mary McMillan 650.363.4129
August 5, 2004
mmcmillan@co.sanmateo.ca.us

Board Unanimously Support Maltbie's Request
Redwood City - San Mateo County Board President Mark Church announced the Board of Supervisors met in closed session today and unanimously agreed to support retention of County Manager John Maltbie beyond the current term on his contract, which expires December 2004. "The County has been well served by County Manager John Maltbie. His 15-year tenure has provided important continuity for the County. Maltbie's successful years of public service occurred during some tough economic times when he was able to bring to the Board on-time balanced budgets and stable and effective services," said Supervisor Church. " John Maltbie's change of mind will benefit the County of San Mateo," concluded Supervisor Church.
The terms of the contract extension will be determined by the end of the year.

This is a little misleading, when it came time for the vote,
Supervisor Rich Gordon voted against it.

Michael Stogner

11-27-2006, 07:30 AM

All good questions, but most likely to no avail.

The best course of action is to shine light on this. Ask the Supervisiors to respond as to why the County Manger, arrested for solicitation, was never investigated. And how does this weigh against those men who were arrested and charged for the same act during this same period.

I would also ask why is this man still in the employ of SM County. Conviction or not this man has never come clean and answered the obvious charges and questions. Look at how the Coroner is being vilified currently for innuedo on sexual harrasment charges. I would guess from the way Maltbie was handled that the Coroner is not an insider.

I do also think this is a very funny episode. What an image, this highly respected windbag leaving an important meeting so he can root around, pick up some cheap trick, and get a roadside BJ. Hillarious. I bet you his wife got a Diamond ring out of this deal.

I have requested a copy of the 16 page Sheriff's Report on the John Maltbie alleged criminal conduct from Supervisor Rich Gordon.

If the SJMN article is correct, our Sheriff and 6 Deputies all believe a crime was committed. That leaves James P. Fox the man responsible for enforcing
our laws as the only person besides John Maltbie who didn't see it that way.

Lets see the 16 page report to see if James P. Fox got it right or not.

Michael Stogner

03-24-2007, 07:37 AM

Maltbie deserves the same consideration that any person would get, if evidence was lost then he's off...plus, has anyone thought that the "evidence" might not have been compelling/enough?

The point here is District Attorney Jim Fox lied to a reporter.

The case did cross his desk.

He (Jim Fox) made it look like the Sheriff's Department never submitted the case to him. The Sheriff and FIVE Deputies did submit a 16 page report recommending criminal charges be filed against John Maltbie.

Tommy

03-24-2007, 07:42 AM

D.A. Fox has a history of lying and untruths. He caters to his cronies, and really needs to be voted out of office.

If you are a friend of his, you will get off easy.

WHY IS MIKE KING STILL FREE???

Michael Stogner

03-24-2007, 06:24 PM

D.A. Fox has a history of lying and untruths. He caters to his cronies, and really needs to be voted out of office.

If you are a friend of his, you will get off easy.

WHY IS MIKE KING STILL FREE???

What is pretty amazing is the fact that Jim Fox does not hide his behavior, nor is he ever concerned. There is no oversight of him or his office. He knows
that no-body can harm him in any way. Currently there is no way for the residents of San Mateo County to even know what alleged crimes are being reported to his office.

Mike King the EX Mayor of San Carlos is still free because the Judge allowed him to be free on bail until his Appeal has been heard.

Don't forget Mike King.... Jim Fox's neighbor (and little known fact Mike King's father supported Jim Fox to be elected) was never going to be charge by Jim Fox.....Fox was pressured to submit the same evidence he had in his possession to the Grand Jury...the Grand Jury recommended Charges be filed.
The Jury finally heard the same old evidence Jim Fox had known about for a long time and Convicted Mike King. Now we wait.

Roscoe_Beedle

03-24-2007, 06:33 PM

Michael Stogner

03-25-2007, 09:17 AM

I'll agree in part with Michael (a near first).

But I would only add that Fox's office did prosecute King and gain a conviction. Now let's see what transpire. For me, I don't think jail is appropriate for this crime. Jail will not do much in this case. But we'll see.

Michael, keep looking into that baddy County Manager. That guy should have been prosecuted given what we have learned.

Roscoe,

Jim Fox had stated " No crime has been committed." When he had the evidence to prove otherwise.

Jim Fox and Steve Wagstaffe stated " the hard-drive had been sent to a Texas Company who was unable to retrieve the data." During the trial there was no evidence of this as a matter of fact the evidence was the Hard-drive was sent all the way down to Atherton, California, where the data was recovered easily.

Defense Attorney Chuck Smith, told the court that Jim Fox had told the Attorney for the City of Belmont, that no crime has been committed if she just has the invoice sent back to Mike King.

If what Chuck Smith said was true, Jim Fox has obstructed Justice in the Mike King Case.