Sgt. Bobby Lopez, the former San Jose police union president, ignited a firestorm last month when reports surfaced that he boasted of having a spy in the Independent Police Auditor’s (IPA) Office. Now he has hired an attorney and won’t talk.
Two weeks ago, the usually loquacious Lopez announced that he would run for his old job as president of the San José Police Officers Association (POA). Lopez said he believes George Beattie, his media-shy successor, is a weak leader.
A few days later, on July 1, an independent investigation report concluded that no mole or spy had burrowed its way into the IPA’s office.
On the day the results of the investigation were released, LaDoris Cordell, the retired judge and Stanford Law School assistant dean who now heads the office, said: “I am greatly relieved that the investigation has determined that there are no leaks of confidential information by any member of my staff.” Six days later, she fired her senior analyst, Suzan Stauffer.
The move was praised by local community groups, who saw the sacking as confirmation that Cordell was doing what she could to remove a suspected informant from her midst.
Though she acknowledges the firing, Cordell still maintains that nobody was providing a back channel to Lopez.
“I have said this several times publicly, and I’ll say it to you: no one—including the person who is no longer on my staff—no one has ever, ever leaked confidential information to Bobby Lopez, or anybody else,” Cordell says. “I firmly, absolutely believe that. Period.”
Lopez won’t say why he’s lawyered up, and declines to comment further. However, a source who has worked with Lopez and the IPA’s office says the longtime cop believes there are forces inside San Jose City Hall who do not want to see him re-elected to his old post.
“He’s concerned that if the friggin’ ACLU can get an IPA employee fired before an investigation is even completed, they’ll go after him next,” the source says.
The imbroglio resulted from a June 9 article by Mercury News reporter Sean Webby, which reported that an IPA staffer had “repeatedly leaked confidential information” to Lopez, and quoted Lopez confirming that he had a spy in the auditor’s office during his time as POA president.
The story sparked outrage from local activists, and strained the already shaky relationship between San Jose police and some community leaders.
“Let me just say that I have no idea who Bobby Lopez is,” Cordell says. “I have never had a conversation with him. I don’t know why he says the things he does. I have no idea.
“My way of dealing with people is to always be objective and not go in with biases. All I know of him is what I have read in the newspaper, and the investigative report. And that doesn’t really tell me much. In fact, it leaves me a bit confused about who this person is.”
Credibility Gap
Cordell was already aware of the concerns about a mole in the IPA’s office by the time the Merc story hit the streets, having been tipped off by former local ACLU head Skyler Porras—one of Webby’s main sources.
The investigative report by attorney Mike Moye of Hanson Bridgett LLP states that Lopez told Webby straight up that he never received information on specific confidential complaints.
“Lopez makes clear that he received no confidential information from anyone on the IPA staff and that the news article was not accurate,” the report says on page 19.
Moye goes on to say that at the beginning and end of Lopez’s June 8 interview with Webby, Lopez told the reporter unequivocally that no confidential IPA information had been passed to him. The Mercury News has since reported that this exchange did not happen.
Lopez agreed to show up for a face-to-face interview for this article, but canceled the interview last week. He explained that in light of “the Pete Constant situation,” his lawyer has barred him from talking to the press.
“As you know most cops don’t like to give interviews,” Lopez said. “It’s the conception that we are going to be misquoted. And I can honestly tell you that I was.”
Lopez said he believes that the Mercury News is going to try and do everything it can to defend Webby’s reporting of the IPA spy story. “Otherwise, he’s toast.”
“I understand where they are coming from and what they were trying to do,” Lopez says, “but it doesn’t negate the fact that I didn’t do anything unethical, or anything wrong.”
San Jose District 1 Councilman Pete Constant, a retired police officer himself, says he believes Lopez is being untruthful.
“I talked to Sean [Webby] about it, and Sean told me that [Lopez] told him more than once. Sean said he even clarified with him what he meant. And now he’s completely recanting and saying something different.
“One can only assume one of two things: that he lied the first time, or he’s lying the second time, because they’re not the same story.
“It worries me whenever we have issues like that, because as a police officer, your credibility is you. He’s not just a police officer, he’s a police sergeant. That carries a lot of authority in our police department, and that concerns me.”
Moving On
Lopez has still never named Stauffer as his source. That said, he has characterized his leaker as a “whistleblower” who let him know about potentially “unethical” practices being perpetrated by former IPA head Barbara Attard.
Cordell, who took over the IPA position in May, continues to refuse to comment further on Stauffer’s firing because it’s a “personnel matter.” She says that if Lopez is elected to become head of the POA again, she will not bring up this situation at all in their interactions.
“I have no interest whatsoever in why he said what he said, or why he does what he does,” Cordell repeated. “He can be helpful to me as leader of the POA by helping my office do the best that it can. I welcome that.”
Cordell points to her newly proposed officer-citizen mediation program as a solution to easing tensions between the community and police. She also just wants to get back to focusing on her job as IPA.
“I’m moving forward,” Cordell says. “There is no way I can operate by looking back. We did an investigation. Done. Life is short, and I have a lot of things I want to do here in this office.”
For his part, Lopez has his November election to think about. And apparently he has other concerns as well: before canceling his interview, he mentioned to Metro that his wife, Kathy, is “getting kind of pissed” at him for igniting this whole controversy in the first place.
“Cordell was already aware of the concerns about a mole in the IPA’s office by the time the Merc story hit the streets, having been tipped off by former local ACLU head Skyler Porras—one of Webby’s main sources. “
Skyler Porras after threatening Cordell to go to community groups if she did not fire a staffer who Porras believed was talking to Lopez, calls Webby with another big anti police story
Let’s see who do we believe?
Webby who’s newspaper career is writing negative POA and SJ police officer stories so left out Porras threating to Cordell since it would undercut Webby’s main anti police source
Lopez who knows Webby makes up anti police stuff but gave Webby a new negative police story
My 2 cents is on Webby making up stuff again for his story
Worse than that….
Skyler Porras engaged in extortion under California law.
And did it to the City of San Jose against city employees.
….and the City of San Jose does NOTHING to protect its employees, other than allow the one who was FULLY EXONERATED to be fired. WTF?
Sounds like time for a Grand Jury investigation….
And maybe a new Independent Police Auditor….
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?
In short what happened…
1) A wrongful and unfounded accusation was made in the form of two (2) acts of extortion by Porras,
2) Failed to report the extortion to the proper authorities (the San Jose PD), and
3) Then fulfilled the Porras extortion request by the termination of an innocent city employee who was exonerated IN FULL by the report of the independent investigator.
As soon an extortion attempt is made against the city, it MUST be promptly reported to law enforcement, the San Jose PD.
This is the law. This failed to occur.
I think Bobby Lopez may have a complaint on the failure to report the act to the SJPD by the IPA in order to support a full, timely, and proper investigation.
By not allowing for an SJPD investigation of the Porras attempt at extortion, Bobby was deprived of due process and proper protection
… by the new IPA, of all people.
The IPA is now headed by a retired Superior Court Judge – who by now ought to know California Penal Code, Sections 518-519 on Criminal Extortion.
And ought to know she has an obligation to report a clear criminal act to the SJPD, not try and sweep it under the carpet under the guise of an “internal investigation”. Haven’t we had enough problems allowing people to investigate themselves? Again….
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The IPA’s OWN REPORT shows that it is a deliberate act and multiple attempts of extortion.
That’s getting off on the right foot!!!
From Page 18 of the Moye report: the documentation of the extortion”
Extortion Attempt 1
“…Porras indicated that she knew who it was, that this staff person did not like the former IPA, and had confirmed that information with a second source.
Porras told Judge Cordell, “here’s what I want you to do” and explained that the employee should be removed from her position.
Porras also stated that if the person was not removed, she would let “the community” know that this person had leaked confidential information to the police. …
Extortion Attempt 2
Judge Cordell met with Porras again on June 2. In this meeting, …
Porras explained that she had a “hunch” based on her observations of this employee at public meetings.
Porras said that she confirmed that “hunch” with another employee on the IPA staff.
Porras then repeated the THREAT to “EXPOSE” this employee to her coalition partners if the employee was not removed from her position.”
The California Definition of Extortion
According to the California Penal Code, Sections 518-519,
“Extortion is … the obtaining of an official act of a public officer,
induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” (§ 518 & 519).
“Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
…
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
In short – READ THE MOYE REPORT!!!! (Opps – someone removed the report from the IPA and City website. So much for full disclosure…)
Porrus made up a story and never had any evidence of a spy in the IPA office, other than Bobby Lopez’s alleged statements, which he also denies.
Let’s pray for the police department, who now has a City AND Independent Auditor who practices the pagan right of sacrificial offerings….
Hey fellow officers – are you ready to be cast into the fiery pit by the new and improved IPA?
Humberto,
You have done a masterful job of summing up the very troubling aspects of this case. I too see this as obvious extortion, and I wonder why the new IPA did not tell the ACLU’s Porras to “Get the hell out of my office. This is a crime. I’m calling the cops.”?
Of course the Merc, through Webby, seem to have played a key role in this alleged extortion by providing Porras a means to carry out the threat. Of course we won’t read about that Porras/Webby connection in the Merc, which is why we depend on alternative media like Metro/SJI, and bloggers like Humberto, to bring these issues to light.
Good reporting Metro!
Humberto,
You didn’t look very hard. The Moye Report is on the homepage of the IPA website. No one has taken it down. Probably too obvious for you to find.
Here it is: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/Outside Investigator’s Report of IPA Office.pdf
They take it down, they put it up… I wonder why.
In general, it’s hard to be responsible for their actions, I’m just noting their actions.
Never thought of it in these terms, but you may have something. Still, did the new IPA ever give a reason for why the employee got fired and is it possible they got fired for some other reason? I don’t remember hearing that one way or the either.
I have to agree with the person above. I also have to say that Lopez was the first person to stand by George Beattie when he made the comments about Raj DeBug being called a thug. Lopez stood up for his VP while he was being attacked by the media. I find it highly unusual that the President, Vice President and a former Vice President jump on the media band wagon trying to scalp the former POA President. This should prove to the community that the thin blue line does not exist especially if you are a political threat. I don’t know if Lopez is running or not. I do believe he would have had the same words Sam Licarrdo used upon hearing of this investigation, Had it been his one time friends listed above. His response would have been somewhat like, let’s wait to we get all the information prior to making a judgement.
One question I do have. If the mole didn’t or doesn’t exist how did the firing of the employee from the IPA get out before it was announced? Maybe they will blame Lopez for this as well.
“I have said this several times publicly, and I’ll say it to you: no one—including the person who is no longer on my staff—no one has ever, ever leaked confidential information to Bobby Lopez, or anybody else,” Cordell says. “I firmly, absolutely believe that. Period.”
SO, why was she fired?
““Let me just say that I have no idea who Bobby Lopez is,” Cordell says. “I have never had a conversation with him. I don’t know why he says the things he does. I have no idea.”
WOW, we have a new IPA who says she doesn’t know who Bobby Lopez is. How ignorant is THAT? Hoow did she get the job by being allegedly ignorant of a big player?
“Lopez said he believes that the Mercury News is going to try and do everything it can to defend Webby’s reporting of the IPA spy story. “Otherwise, he’s toast.”
Canning Webby would be a great service to the SJ newspaper-reading public. But Raj Jayadev would be pissed, no doubt.
“Cordell, who took over the IPA position in May, continues to refuse to comment further on Stauffer’s firing because it’s a “personnel matter.”
This “personnel matter” exception to public disclosure about public employees needs to be rescinded. They work for US—WE THE PEOPLE—and are therefore accountable to US, as well as their titular bosses. In the end, WE THE PEOPLE are the boss, so WE THE PEOPLE have an absolute right to know everything about their service, tenure, and termination
In my humble opinion I believe the “media” between the Murky and Metro are attempting to divide an association. If the community were to sit both these men down they would see that deep down they both have their hearts into the members of the police department. I might also add this Police Department with out a doubt is the finest in the country. With hundreds of thousands of contacts between police and citizens in a year they have the lowest rates of complaints. It’s time to put this to rest. The investigation is done. Let’s move on and think about the victims and really how safe this city is. This issue does nothing to make our city better. Please Stop!
“One question I do have. If the mole didn’t or doesn’t exist how did the firing of the employee from the IPA get out before it was announced? “
Webby has a spy in IPA office or IPA office is leaking info to Mercury on purpose
If you see a crime or are a crime victim but no one files a police report nothing happens and it is not reported as a crime
Has anyone filed a police or criminal grand jury complaint?
Mercury doesn’t want an investigation, ACLU doesn’t, Council doesn’t, IPA doesn’t, SJPD doesn’t so nothing will happen.
Politically no one wants another potential IPA political scandal, so will ignore extortion threats unless someone actually makes a police or grand jury criminal complaint rather than few comments on little read local insider political blog.
Hey, Metro or SJ Inside how about you filing a criminal complaint?
Without even speculating what Bobby Lopez may or may not have said about the IPA to the hate monger from the Mercury, I was troubled to see that he has made himself so publicly scarce during the firestorm that followed the publication of the alleged quote. Certainly he understands the power of public perception, and how that perception can be affected by the action or, in this case, inaction of the accused.
What troubles me most has been Lopez’s motives of late. His personal endorsement in the recent Sheriff’s race of a retired police commander, a man who, though of fine character, couldn’t on his best day outsmart the bumbling Inspector Clouseau on his worst, stank of political intrigue—especially when that same inept candidate received the support of Mayor Reed, who, coincidentally, keeps on his leash as public safety advisor the sheriff’s most energetic political foe, Lopez’s good buddy, retired sheriff’s lieutenant Jose Salcido.
Not only did Lopez put the residents of this county at risk by endorsing an incompetent, he then turned his efforts towards compelling the association he once led, the SJPOA, into doing publicly what few members would ever do privately: endorse his candidate. Things quickly got nasty, as the POA refused to make any endorsement in the race (citing policy) and Bobby did his very best to throw around his considerable weight, including setting afloat some very reckless and undeserved insinuations. Apparently the absence of personal endorsements for his candidate from the man’s former peers on the command staff failed to inform Lopez’s opinion of the man’s reputation with his coworkers.
Then came the turd with a stink too rank to ignore, the IPA scandal, followed by the rumor of Lopez’s return for a return run at the POA presidency. What an injurious and completely unnecessary debacle.
It’s as if the transition is complete, as if he’s closed his eye to the interests of those who’ve for so long entrusted him and morphed into that most horrific of predatory beasts, the rabid political animal. Sadly, it seems the reputation and solidarity of the SJPOA, not to mention the public good, has been put at risk by a pair of displaced, revenge-seeking sheriff’s office operatives (Lopez and Salcido), joined at the hip by a two-faced mayor who sees the path to higher office paved with the broken ruble of our city’s police association.
Given his gentle treading of late, perhaps Mr. Lopez should firmly embrace it and go gently off into that good night.
Shame you feel this. Sounds like political motivation for personal gain. Stop it! Your not doing anyone any good. A lot of things could be said here. (Both Sides) Your not doing your association any good or the people you so serve.
This is one weird little bubble you guys have going here.
@whodoyoubelieve: “Skyler Porras after threatening Cordell to go to community groups if she did not fire a staffer who Porras believed was talking to Lopez, calls Webby with another big anti police story” Other than the fevered, anonymous speculation of a person close to Lopez—not exactly an unbiased source—where is there any suggestion, let alone evidence, that Porras ‘threatened’ anybody with anything? There is none, and yet some of you are off and running with hysterical cries to charge Porras with extortion.
@johnmichael O’connor “WOW, we have a new IPA who says she doesn’t know who Bobby Lopez is. How ignorant is THAT? Hoow did she get the job by being allegedly ignorant of a big player?” Really? That’s what you believe is happening? This quote from her is in response to a question about how she would handle the relationship if Lopez—one of the primary players in the just-completed investigation—were to again win election to head the POA. Seems pretty clear that she’s saying she will approach him with few pre-conceived notions about what kind of person he is, that she would give him the benefit of the doubt. In other words, there’s a lot of muddy water under the bridge between the IPA and Lopez, but she’s offering to start with a clean slate (mixed-metaphor: sorry). If she approaches all of her IPA duties with this much deftness, diplomacy & sensitivity, I’d say the IPA could be a very effective office in the future. But then again, maybe that’s what worries some of the commenters here.
The strained terminology, used by both Cordell & Lopez—“no leaks of confidential information,” “received no confidential information,” “no one has ever, ever leaked confidential information to Bobby Lopez, or anybody else,”—strongly suggests that something damaging was leaked, just not confidential information. Cordell waits for the report to be submitted, happily (and truthfully) claims there is/was no one leaking “confidential” information, then a week later fires her staffer whose loyalties perhaps lean more to the POA than to her own office. Just my interpretation, but it seems to fit the “knowns” best.
Guys—for whatever reason—you can dislike the idea of an IPA, but if you’re going to criticize it, try to stay within the realm of facts, and burst this little ideological bubble…the air’s stale.
” if you’re going to criticize it, try to stay within the realm of facts ”
ScottyMac Suggest you do your homework before commenting – Here are the facts
PS I agree “IPA could be a very effective office in the future. ” if run properly as intended, not as it has been under Attard as ACLU’s and Mercury’s biased anti police city funded investigation office
INVESTIGATION REPORT REGARDING THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR Page 18 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/Outside Investigator’s Report of IPA Office.pdf&embedded=true
“After initial pleasantries, Porras told Judge Cordell, “I have some bad news to tell you.”
Porras then related that in February or March of 2009 she met with Sergeant Lopez and he told
her that someone on the IPA staff had been leaking information to him about specific complaints
filed with the IPA. Judge Cordell confirmed that Porras understood that Lopez had been
receiving information about specific complaints. Porras related Lopez’s statement that the staff
member had provided the information because the person felt that the then-IPA had pursued
the complaints without justification.
Porras indicated that she knew who it was, that this staff person did not like the former IPA, and had confirmed that information with a second source.
Porras told Judge Cordell, “here’s what I want you to do” and explained that the employee should be removed from her position. Porras also stated that if the person was not removed, she would let “the community” know that this person had leaked confidential information to the
police.
Judge Cordell said that she would need time to look into the matter and tentatively scheduled a meeting for the following week.
Judge Cordell met with Porras again on June 2. In this meeting, Judge Cordell asked her to describe again the conversation with Sergeant Lopez. In this meeting, Porras said Lopez said “! get calls from the IPA’s office. Not all the staff there agree with how complaints are categorized.”
In response to Judge Cordell’s questions, Porras clarified that Lopez never told her that he had received information from IPA staff or about specific complaints.
Porras also stated how she had concluded which member of the IPA staff Lopez was referring to.22 Porras explained that she had a “hunch” based on her observations of this employee at public meetings. Porras said that she confirmed that “hunch” with another employee on the IPA staff.
Porras then repeated the threat to “expose” this employee to her coalition partners if the
employee was not removed from her position.
In the meeting, Judge Cordell asked Porras why she had waited almost a year to come forward with this information. Porras explained that she wanted to confirm her suspicion as to which employee Sergeant Lopez was referring to and she was also concerned that the allegations would adversely affect the IPA office given the prior controversy related to the
appointment of Chris Constantin.”
Maybe we have a clue here in this footnote from page 31 of the report that may give us insight into Cordell:
Footnote 45 “The former IPA described that one of the employees involved in the audit of investigations was viewed as playing the role of “devil’s advocate,” raising different perspectives on issues, in group discussions of audits. However, the former IPA saw nothing that indicated the employee was doing anything other than expressing an opinion that she felt was justified by the circumstances.”
So it seems as if Barbara Attard liked having someone in the IPA office who would counterbalance her more activist views with knowledge of the SJPD operations and proceedures. This would make sense. Maybe we underestimated Attard.
And perhaps… Judge Cordellis is NOT interested in different perspectives????
And maybe this should be the real fear—- Activists are passionate people often do not like to be told that there are two sides to the story and often eliminate people who have opinions that do not conform to their agenda.
Isn’t that what Porras tried to do?
If so, THIS IS NOT GOOD.
But I think the real reason is Cordell needed a sacrificial lamb to appease Raj and the others. She looked over her inventory (opps – staff) and choose to sacrifice the cleared employee.
If so, THIS IS ALSO NOT GOOD.
What it speaks to is a lack of integrity and leadership skills in the “New and Improved” IPA.
We should not expect this “New and Improved” IPA to be any friend of the SJPD or City.
I am not looking forward to the first time I have a complaint filed against me that gets to the IPA.
IA is OK.
A balanced IPA is A-OK, but what I am seeing does not make me think I or my fellow officers will get treated by anything else but an internal SJ activist organization.
We need an independent auditor to review the IPA, I fear. And now isn’t that silly?
Humberto, I think you have made a very good point.
It looks like a crime was committed against the city – extortion.
It looks like a retired judge is trying to just make it go away and pretend like it never happened.
The SJPD may have been somewhat conflicted, but now that the extortion attempt is clearly documented in the report and by backed by Porras’ own comments to the press, it is time that the SJPD acts and investigates.
We can’t have people going around making knowingly false claims about city employees.
Whistle blowing is A-OK and needed, but false, baseless and made up accusations combined with extortion threats is not acceptable and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Period.
And anyone who tries to protect the perpetrator of such a crime against city employees is no friend of the city.
So the question is will Davis act on this and enforce an investigation?
We’ll see.
” Porras then repeated the threat to “expose” this employee to her coalition partners if the employee was not removed from her position.” – IPA Investigator
” Porras said that she confirmed that “hunch” with another employee on the IPA staff.” – Who is IPA office Rat/Spy that Porras talked to ?
Not Nice People asked, “Who is IPA office Rat/Spy that Porras talked to?” I’d like to add two more questions. If the IPA’s Office is so trustworthy then who is the Mole/Spy the Merc spoke to and is STILL speaking to in the IPA’s Office? AND who leaked the firing of an IPA staffer to the press and the activists?
“Who is IPA office Rat/Spy that Porras talked to? “
Rats in the IPA office???? Surely not.
If you read the report and look at the IPA staff on the IPA web site, there appear to be two people who are in a position to have regular contact with Skyler Porras.
(I read lots of detective stories so this should be fun to figure out.)
1) Shivaun Nurre, Deputy Director
2) Diane Doolan-Diaz, Education Specialist & Complaint Examiner
It should be pretty easy to figure out, any smart police officer, lawyer, or investigator should be able put the pieces together.
It’s a pretty small office and the IPA site says a fair amount about Nurre’s and Doolan-Diaz’s roles. I’ve met Nurre at community meetings and I am pretty sure I saw Doolan-Diaz in other meetings.
The other persons in the office process data and perform reception work and are not in a position to have regular contact with the community.
Reading the report, it looks like Nurre may have been the person who had some of the contact with Lopez and that would make sense in her role as assistant and interim IPA. I’ve met her at a La Raza meeting and she seems like a very measured and thoughtful person. I was pretty impressed with her.
I’m pretty sure she is Staff Contact #2 and Employee B. Employee A is Attard and Employee C is Stauffer.
This would also make sense to call her #2 as she was the interim IPA so would be presented first in the report.
Doolan-Diaz was a peer to Stauffer
She appears to be Staff Contact #3 and Employee D based on her internal IPA role, community outreach role, and the external meetings she attended,
plus she is the only other candidate for Contact #3 and Employee D—it is a pretty small city office and the process of elimination works.
The report says:
“Porras stated that she told another IPA employee (Staff Contact #3) about Lopez’s allegations and that this contact identified the same employee as Porras. However, in speaking with Staff Contact #3, it was clear that she did not.”
Also from the report:
“Staff Contact #3 understood Porras to be saying that an employee had “complained” to Sergeant Lopez about the IPA but Staff Contact #3 had no information about how the complaint occurred or what was said.
Staff Contact #3 assumed that the matter concerned a statement that the employee did not like the former IPA and said that she told Porras, “it would not surprise me” and nothing more.”
“Staff Contact #3 knew that the employee in question had met with Sergeant Lopez in early 2009 and that the meeting was part of several outreach efforts by the employee and her interest in the open IPA position and she assumed the statement criticizing the former IPA came up in that context.”
So the report and IPA web site staff information seem to give all the information needed to reverse engineer who is who in the IPA Investigative Report.
Look at the Staff Roles and the Report on the web,
Well Colombo, admins know A LOT about what goes on in the office so you can’t discount them, and the new IPA has a lot at stake if they get rid of that office! What better way to save the office and shut Porras and her pals up than to offer up an employee they hate, while casting a sinister light on the former POA President Bobby Lopez? Another person, by the way, that they hate?
The bottom line is this, there is no way Sean Cop Hating Webby would know about the firing of Stauffer unless someone STILL working in the IPA’s Office was leaking information. So no one is going to convince me that the IPA’s Office deserves public trust, or is going to be fair in reviewing complaints against the SJPD.
So…I stand somewhat corrected about the ‘threatening’ of IPA Cordell by Porras (thanks for the citation, “IPA Facts”)…But let’s be honest: This is not ‘Extortion’ or, more correctly, this is not ‘Blackmail.’ This is politics, which you don’t like. Not because you don’t like politics in general, but because your ‘side’ (maintaining lack of police oversight by anyone not beholden to the SJPD) lost. Someone from the IPA office may have helped flush out a leaker to POA, which then strengthens the mission of the IPA, and of course, those with a vested interest in keeping police unaccountable (“IPA Facts,” “Humberto,” I’m talking to you) cry ‘Extortion!’
I beg you, petition the DA’s office to bring charges against Porras, but please tape-record the proceedings and post them here, so we can all hear you get laughed out of the building.
Porras did not commit extortion, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the US government did not crash planes into the WTO and the Pentagon. Just FYI.
I think Dan Fenton and Team San Jose has something to do with this!