BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Rules for thee, not for me. A lawyer for embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus is making that argument in a 25-page report that’s intended to refute allegations Corpus retaliated against her employees, used racial and homophobic slurs, and acted dishonestly.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors plans to hold due process proceedings on whether to fire Corpus, and lawyers for Corpus are already attempting to make their arguments public. The process is yet to be finalized.
Riverside County attorney Burke Strunsky, who was hired by Corpus’ legal team, argues the county’s policy manual doesn’t apply to the sheriff. “Because the Sheriff derives authority directly from the electorate — not from appointment or contract — the policy manual, drafted for departmental employees, does not govern the sheriff’s official conduct,” Strunsky writes.
One of the most serious allegations facing Corpus is that she violated the county policy manual by carrying on an affair with one of her employees, former Chief of Staff Victor Aenlle. If the supervisors were to accept Strunsky’s argument at face value, then the alleged affair wouldn’t count.
For the record, Corpus and Aenlle continue to deny they’ve been having an affair, even though an independent investigator, retired Judge LaDoris Cordell, found that Aenlle bought Corpus $1,200 Louboutin boots and $11,000 diamond earrings from Tiffany’s.
Strunsky served for six years as a judge in Riverside County and then ran unsuccessfully for district attorney. After that defeat, he went into private practice and was retained by the law firm of Murphy Pearson Bradley Feeney, which is representing Corpus.
Strunsky’s report, and Corpus’ suit against the supervisors earlier this month to obtain a copy of Cordell’s $200,000 contract, suggest the sheriff’s strategy might be to attack the process and the investigators instead of addressing the substance of the allegations.
Strunsky acknowledges that the purpose of his report is to evaluate the report Cordell released in November. Cordell, a judge for 20 years and later the San Jose police auditor, interviewed more than 40 witnesses who were current or former employees of the sheriff’s office.
Because Corpus and Aenlle allegedly retaliated against their employees, Cordell did not put the names of the witnesses in her report.
Since the report has come out, Corpus has been trying to get those names.
In his report, Strunsky complains, “Cordell’s report is a black box. Except for Mr. Aenlle, every interview was conducted off-camera, not in person, unrecorded, and undocumented; every credibility judgment rests exclusively on Cordell’s untestable word; almost all of the witness (sic) are given an anonymous number or moniker.”
Strunsky argues that Corpus is entitled to “due process that matches the magnitude of the action being contemplated.”
The Board of Supervisors is contemplating a hearing in which a finder of fact would listen to testimony and review evidence, and then make a recommendation to the board of supervisors.
This is truly a sad defense. I can do whatever I want because the rules don’t apply to me! I guess that means she broke all the rules.
Strunsky doesn’t strike me as a Clarence Darrow or Perry Mason. He’s more like Jimmy McGill in Better Call Saul.
The attorney does realize this is an HR investigation right? Not a court hearing nor a lawsuit. The county will have sworn testimony in court.
Also the racial slur was downloaded as evidence from software.
The rest of the investigation will be handled legally and what gets me is the board of supervisors has not started her removal process nor have they listed any reasons why they want to fire her potentially. The cordell report could be a mute point once that happens- meaning there is evidence that will be listed and noone has said that the hearing is based soleley on the cordell report.
Wasted money on this attorney’s time reviewing an HR report.
I would think that if the Cordell report becomes a moot point and not at all relevant to the charges that the BOS intends to bring against the Sheriff, then the BOS used false pretenses to coerce voters into giving them the power of removal.
The Cordell report raised serious concerns about the Corpus administration. The allegations used to remove Corpus will fall in line with Measure A and those reasons will be supported by sworn testimony and proof.
So here you have an HR investigation(the Cordell Report) noone said that the county can use that as evidence nor the sole basis of Corpus’ removal.
An attorney that picks apart an HR investigation is not understanding what the Cordell report is. It set a basis for issues, serious issues being ignored by Corpus. There are other serious issues outside of the Cordell report also. Cordell only investigated HR complaints brought to the Countys whistleblower line and the Sheriff office HR.
The mute point is that noone is relying on this HR investigation to remove Corpus. Watch the April 8th board meeting there is a 3 1/2 month process in place all to discuss and have a hearing on whatever removal reasons are brought forward- and not one of those reasons is relying on solely the Cordell report. The issues and reasons for said removal have yet to be told.
Pretty much wasted time on Corpus and her attorneys so far. Probably sometime Aenlle told the attorneys and ABC7 to do.
Serious issues were raised- some of them won’t be the issues discussed in a removal hearing. Some unintelligent people fall for the gaslighting . Noone intelligent can ignore severe labor law violations and or issues with potentially violating multiple laws.
If this is a critique of the Corpus report, why does Strunsky make a point of saying Corpus was picked on because she was a Latina woman? Did Cirdell, who is black, ever make an issue of Corpus being a Latina? No!
The report is full of some amazing, words, phrases and conclusions. One might start with the 24-instances of the use of the phrase, “Proposition A”, instead of “Measure A.” There was no Proposition A in San Mateo County. Measure A was overwhelmingly approved by the San Mateo County voters. Perhaps Strunsky did that word faux pas intentionally to demonstrate the insignificance of Judge Cordell distinctions articulated concerning “CBRE”, making a similar and often repeated (what, some 24-times in 25-pages?) error himself. Of course Strunsky fails to objectively present that CBRE in fact stands for Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis, instead of CB Richard Ellis; how selectively presented. The distinction and importance is relative to the appearance of Coldwell Banker in context of Aenlle’s undisputed association there as a licensed realtor; don’t be fooled by fanciful wording and phraseology. I wonder exactly how much the Strunsky’s word salad cost the Corpus team, with an eye toward the very transparency so often touted by Corpus and her crew, and now through the Strunsky report.
Also quaintly omitted from Strunsky’s report is any mention that California’s Constitution requires the County Charter to provide for the “compensation, terms and removal” of the sheriff (Const. art. XI, §4.). Measure A is specifically on point to that constitutional requirement. Nor does Strunsky’s report mention Government Code section 25303, which provides, “The board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers particularly insofar as the functions and duties of such county officers relate to the assessing, collecting, safekeeping, management, or disbursement of public funds. It shall see that they faithfully perform their duties, direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and when necessary, require them to renew their official bond, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection.” Another statutory requirement being methodically fulfilled by the Board of Supervisors.
Strunsky’s report also remains mute on, and ignores, whistleblower protection guarantees, or any need for a Director of Administration (Chief of Staff is Aenlle’s term for himself) to appear armed, in a full Sheriff’s uniform, in a public place that is clearly beyond the scope of his employment. I doubt Strunsky himself appeared that way in any position he held as an attorney for the People.
Strunsky’s anticipatory challenge of the Cordell report effectively ignores that the Cordell Report could be just the starting point, as he so aptly suggested. The District Attorney’s investigations and any Grand Jury or federal probes of the Corpus Corruption allegations may well entail some, all, or more of the investigative steps that Strunsky did not find, yet may well still exist. Strunsky fails to address why Corpus has a pattern of avoiding comment and interviews, thereby obstructing Cordell’s investigation. Instead, the Corpus team appears to prefer a trial of public opinion and continue along that apparent path.
Finally, Strunsky’s report asserts that Corpus has a right to certain elements of a trial, yet he apparently intentionally omits clarification between a trial and a tribunal. A trial is a formal legal proceeding where a judge and/or jury determine the outcome of a case, often involving evidence presented and arguments made by opposing parties. Corpus for have a trial for charges levied against her in court, if that happens. A tribunal, on the other hand, is a broader term referring to a body established to adjudicate disputes, which may be a court but also includes various bodies with quasi-judicial functions. Tribunals can be more informal and have broader jurisdiction than traditional court trials, often with specialized expertise in specific areas of law. A tribunal is the likely path for Measure A consequences relative to Corpus continued service as sheriff.
This “report” reeks of desperation.
How timely- to finally read the Cordell report Corpus.
Next up- has the board of supervisors listed any reasons why they want you to be removed? Will the Cordell report be solely based on the removal of Corpus? Are any of these 25 pages from this attorney relevant to Measure A or the removal process?
Stay present and relevant!
[Post removed for Terms of Use violation. Don’t make false allegations.]
Noyes is back at it again- not understanding what the rest of the normal people do.
Pointing out Chrissy’s lawyers twisting the narrative against the county and ignoring any Corpus wrongdoings.
What does the Cordell report have to do with the Measure A removal process? Have the removal reasons listed anything in the Cordell report ? Have any removal reasons been presented- it would be nice if the county would start doing something quickly they’ve had years to work on this and its is making things worse for employees the longer this drags out.
Hopefully, we see some solid reasons and when those reasons are listed that they have sworn testimony as evidence.
How many of you have complained to HR and then had sworn testimony as such. The HR complaints were about Aenlle and the people interviewed were people that directly saw or experienced the complaints that were filed with the sheriff office HR and county. Not sure who needs to be sworn in to file a HR complaint.
And then gaslight issues again based on who are the 40 people, CBRE means what, videos weren’t released bla bla bla just ignore the facts that chrissy and vicky took a trip to hawaoi together months before she took office. Chrissy ignores county policies for vicky. Chrissy allows vicky to do whatever he wants- he is with her 24/7 and still wants this little realtor to work at the sheriff office despite the trouble he causes.
What a disgrace. Gross negligence to take any accountability . It unrepairable behavior.
The 90,000 voters of measure A apparently don’t count. The attorney seemed a little confused on the fact that corpus was elected by less than 90,000 people that now have turned against her. A recall isn’t the only way to lose your job. Grans jury? Attorney General? FBI? Measure A? anyone ?
Go away fake news Dan.
No one plays the victim better than the one who caused the damage.
Chasing the big bucks, Burke? Trying to make your way back to S.F. Bay Area politics? To insinuate that no SMSO policies apply to the Sheriff is ludicrous. Taking a page out of the President’s playbook? The law doesn’t apply to me, only everyone else!
Absolutely laughable. What Burke has to know, but fails to mention, is that criminal investigative reports and HR matters are documented entirely differently. The BOS will likely jumpstart the removal process during their May 6th meeting. Corpus will have an opportunity to respond, but she will likely never provide any verbal testimony, as she’s a coward and knows perjury has consequences. No worries, her day of reckoning will come. Though it will take awhile, her career will be in ashes and her personal life will be equally abysmal, buried under lawsuits and criminal complaints against her for years to come. If you sleep with dogs, you’re bound to get fleas. I hope banging boots with Victor was worth it Sweetheart!
If Chrissy wants to throw out the Cordell report, let’s do so. Let’s look just at her behavior after the report came out. She arrested and jailed a union leader, Carlos Tapia, who had spoken out against her. The DA later said the charges against the union leader were unfounded. And she fired Ryan Monaghan for speaking with Cordell about the report. Those two actions alone are enough to fire her.
I read the Measure A list of removal reasons. Not seeing the Cordell report listed as one.
What is the Corpus attorney’s reasoning to put this meaningless paper out. That an HR investigation cannot be the basis nor the reason for removal? Well, ok it is not.
Are they trying to publicly victim shame people that are considered whistleblowers? Sworn testimony and removal list of violations will be coming.
Corpus should apply for a job in the Trump administration. She’d fit right in with her rules don’t apply to me mantra.
Let’s call the Cordell report an HR investigation into AENLLE and should clearly highlight it doesn’t need sworn testimony. Cordell merely spoke to whistleblowers and signaled a need for major help and further investigation!
Burke treats this HR investigation like a criminal investigation or even accusations in court. If that should play out then the ball game changes along with sworn testimony.
Measure A was placed on the ballot after continuous retaliation, defiance and intimidation. Labor laws, state and federal laws apply to Corpus too- a Sheriff is not exempt from following laws- sadly it takes millions of dollars to do so. Maybe the grand jury or the 2026 recall would be easier than enforcing Measure A.
Crossing fingers Measure A starts soon. Either way Corpus- you want a recall or to see the grand jury decision Corpus will be out in 6-12 months- let’s hope Measure A does the same thing sooner.
The crazed responses merely show Aenlles time spent conjuring up rhetoric and irrelevant information. Tit for tat his word vs theirs- except there is evidence the Cordell report is true- videos, downloaded cell phone data, recorded zoom calls … plane tickets and such. The bigger issues actually are yet to be revealed.
Ummm, the lawyers for Corpus might want to start looking at the PERB complaint and the government code violations in that- since January 2022 is when Corpus is responsible for anything that she has done.
Can’t ignore memos or misconduct- that’s kinda an important starting point.
Then the ignored HR complaints causing the county to hire a retired judge to investigate Aenlle’s misconduct ie Corpus employee and therefore she is also responsible. Take accountability for your “$?!T”Corpus.
One should ask why the Cordell report began in the first place. Why the deputy’s, sergeant’s and captain’s filed votes of no confidence?
Why a PERB complaint was filed? Why state, government employees have asked for Corpus to resign? Why almost every city council in san mateo voted no confidence in Corpus?
Why a recall takes so long? Why Measure A is not rolled out ready to go? Why the Attorney General isn’t focused on California issues?
When is this circus, which continues to be embarrassment to San Mateo County, going to end? It is very apparent that this Sheriff does not care for the employees.
The difference between the Cordell report and Strunksy’s attempt to discredit it is motive. Judge Cordell was hired by the BOS for one reason only – to determine if the multitude of complaints made to HR concerning Christy and her boyfriend had any merit. It is highly likely the BOS were hoping there was no merit to the complaints, that it was just a bunch of whining employees unhappy with a new administration. Either way, Judge Cordell was hired to investigate the complaints without an agenda or intended outcome.
By contrast, Judge Strunsky was hired by Christy’s legal team for one purpose only: to try and discredit Judge Cordell’s report. Aside from some obvious problems with his report, it is clear that Judge Strunsky (as he said himself) had one job only, and that was to raise doubt about the validity of Judge Cordell’s report, but not the complaints themselves.
Quite a few in Christy’s camp, including Judge Strunsky, complain about the fact that the witnesses are not identified and there is no record – other than Judge Cordell’s report – of each interview. Judge Strunsky seems to imply that the witnesses were required to testify under oath, despite the fact that this is an administrative investigation, not criminal. Regardless, I can say with certainty that all 40 witnesses would be willing to give their statements “on the record” to appease Christy and her desperate team of attorneys. It won’t change any of the information they provided.
Also notable in Judge Strunsky’s report, he seems overly focused on witness #3, which is in line with Christy, her boyfriend, and their pay-to-play reporter friend, Dan Noyes, who have all made veiled threats to “out” witness #3. Why? Because witness #3 provided the most damning information (all of it true, by the way) about Christy’s affair with Victor. Would witness #3 provide the same statements under oath that were given to Judge Cordell? I’m told yes. But beyond witness #3, John Kovach will inevitably be subpoenaed and have to answer questions about his ex-wife’s affair with the little doc. What will Christy do then? Call him a liar? That seems to be her go-to defense – everyone is lying except for her. And her boyfriend, of course.
Another problem with Judge Strunsky’s report is his statement that “gold-tone badges for civilian executives are common statewide. Assistant and Deputy District Attorneys routinely carry gold badges.” The difference between a DDA and Victor? Credibility. A DDA is tasked with prosecuting criminals and as such, they are entitled to identification commensurate with their jobs. Victor, on the other hand, is a failed-out-of-the-program wanna-be deputy who hasn’t even kept up his required hours and training to be considered a reserve deputy. Yet he insisted on dressing the part – badge, gun, and at times, uniform, so that he could play-act the role of someone with powers of arrest. Which is why his decision to conduct a traffic stop while he was driving an unmarked patrol vehicle is so problematic. It’s all about credibility, or in Victor’s case, lack thereof.
The bottom line is this: the 40 witnesses who bravely gave statements to Judge Cordell will surely be re-interviewed “on the record” as we get closer to Christy’s ouster. By hiring Judge Strunsky to pick apart Judge Cordell’s report, Christy is hoping to intimidate the witnesses who were willing (and remain so) to stand up to the massive corruption in the Corpus administration. Apparently Christy hasn’t contemplated the fact that she herself will eventually have to answer questions on the record, something she has thus far refused to do. Perhaps it has something to do with Steve Wagstaffe’s comment, “There is evidence we have uncovered that provokes us to continue with our inquiry” when asked about his ongoing investigation of Christy and his decision to hold off on filing charges until the removal process is complete. That alone could explain Christy’s desire to drag this thing out for as long as possible. Tick tock.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]
VERY well stated! Not to mention the FACT that some of those witnesses are ABSOLUTELY beyond reproach!
Corpus is delaying the inevitable. She could have stepped down with what little dignity she had left. Vicky is facing some BIG trouble as well. Wags is playing his cards close to the vest, as he always has! He is sitting back and watching and waiting to strike. I would also argue there is a STRONG possibility of a super ceding indictment by the Feds waiting to be filed.
Corpus and Vicky thought/think they are smarter than everyone else. This is a classic mistake of a sociopathic/narcissistic criminal! The fact is Corpus messed with the bull and is about to get the horns!
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]
One morning, deputies in the SO will discover that Christina and Victor never came to work. They’ll do a welfare check on their homes and find nobody is there. They will have fled to a place like Cuba that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S. Of course they’ll be using fake identities.
[Post removed — Terms of Use violation. Commenter is using more than one name on this thread to create a sock puppet effect.]