BY ADRIANA HERNANDEZ
Daily Post Staff Writer
Former Secretary of Labor and former Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez is requesting an hour at tomorrow’s (Aug. 12) San Mateo County Board of Supervisors meeting to present a different removal procedure that is fairer to San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus.
Perez sent a letter to Supervisor David Canepa and County Attorney John Nibbelin on Thursday, asking for time to speak because he interpreted a federal judge’s comments to mean that the Measure A process is unfair to Corpus.
Corpus’ attorney Willson Leung went before the U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria on Thursday to put a stop to the Measure A hearing, which starts next week.
Chhabria, whose name is spelled “Chhabra” in Perez’s letter, acknowledged that Corpus will be fired by the end of the hearing and the county should pursue a more constitutional way to move forward, according to Perez.
But this is not true, according to county spokeswoman Effie Verducci.
The county does not believe the letter is accurate as to what Chhabria said in federal court, and this is a continuation of the three other attempts Corpus has made to stop or postpone the removal process, which have been rejected, Verducci said.
San Mateo Superior Court Judge Nicole Healy has rejected two of Corpus’s requests for a temporary restraining order and to stop the investigation District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe is leading because he is a conflict of interest.
San Mateo Superior Court Judge Nina Shapirshtey has also rejected Corpus’s other request for a temporary restraining order.
The federal hearing would be the fourth attempt by Corpus to stop the Measure A hearing.
Chhabria said on Aug. 7 that he would issue a ruling “shortly.”
At Thursday’s hearing, Chhabria asked Leung to convince him the Measure A hearing ought to end before it begins.
“Before the end of the year … I could order the county to give her back pay, and maybe even damages for reputational harm,” Chhabria said. “I’m not saying you have much of a chance prevailing in those proceedings. The opportunity would be available to you to convince me that such a remedy is required.”
Perez, who was the assistant attorney general for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice and Secretary of Labor under President Obama, states that his career has been primarily focused on police misconduct and that he has extensive experience in prosecuting.
“I welcome an opportunity to discuss lessons learned from this experience,” Perez said.
Perez was also chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2017-2021, President Trump’s first term.
Perez also asks for the board to let the civil grand jury trial process play out before the Measure A hearings begin.
Corpus is facing removal from two fronts. The Board of Supervisors has voted to fire Corpus, and Measure A hearings will begin on Aug 18 and last 10 days.
Separately, the county civil grand jury has filed an accusation against Corpus and it will lead to a trial. A conviction will result in her removal from office.
Superior Court Judge Mark McCannon scheduled the next hearing for the civil grand jury case on September 24 to allow the Measure A hearings to proceed first.
Attorneys for both Corpus and the county were given 10 days to review the transcript, which is between 1,800 and 2,000 pages, and decide whether to make it private or public.
The agenda for tomorrow’s supervisors meeting has not been changed, meaning Perez’s request was likely denied. Verducci did not answer a question from the Post if the county accepted Perez’s request.
What about the 40-50+ people that the Sheriff herself has violated civil rights and employment laws harming their jobs, livelihood, careers etc? Who holds the Sheriff accountable for wrongdoing if the San Mateo voters can not? This needs to end!
The election year turned out 84,000 voters for her into office. The 90,000 voters that tuned out for Measure A have spoken and want the Sheriff removed by the Board of Supervisors or for the Sheriff to actually be ethical and step down!!!
This is an outrage for her to continue to cost the county millions and continue to hire attorneys to fight this battle. Resign Corpus, noone want you to stay and you are not even working.
What is the point of the lawsuits she files and delay tactics? She is 100% ignoring what the people want her to do!
Don’t be ignorant.
It is a waste of time to respond to Ignorance, but maybe someone else will see this and see the light. Since when does an angry mob tell a sheriff what to do or how to do her job? Do angry mobs govern the Bay Area, or do calm and patient people govern it? This needs due process. Not mob rule. No matter the outcome. Haste makes waste. Beware unintended consequences.
As soon as she is FIRED, she’ll have to pay for her own legal fees.
Although I’ve not had a chance to watch a video recording of the session on Aug. 7th in front of Judge Chhabria, the quotations I’ve read from it suggests he made no comment _whatsoever_ on the merits or prospects of petitioner Corpus’s legal or factual stances. All he did, just like several Superior Court judges before him, was rule that his court doesn’t yet have jurisdiction in the first place, because Corpus’s case fails the mandatory test of judicial ripeness — the one all judges apply, as a procedural filter, to turn away cases not ready for adjudication.
Tom Perez seems to have tried a Jedi mind trick on county attorney Nebellin, to coerce a last-minute do-over, which predictably didn’t work.
Given Perez & co’s failure to pass the basic ripeness test, it would be unexpected (and inappropriate) for any presiding judge to even faintly suggest “You have a good case; I just cannot hand you a win yet”, and I greatly doubt Chhabria did so.
Meanwhile, the main reason to doubt any court will enjoin the voters’ March decision or the county’s procedures to implement it is that San Mateo County has closely followed a process two other California charter counties followed in similar situations with problematic elected officials: San Bernardino County in 2002, and Los Angeles County in 2024. The former’s removal process got an approval letter from then-Attorney General Lockyer, and then was court-tested.
Admittedly, neither of those counties had to flesh out a full, detailed removal administrative process, as San Mateo County did, because neither had an office-holder who pushed the issue to the bitter end, but that’s the only novel element. S.M.C.’s detailed process was designed for it in April by Alfonso Estrada, attorney at Hanson Bridgett LLP. Estrada is that firm’s litigation expert on employment law and VP of its Labor & Employment Section, and designed the process specfically to stress fundamental fairness to Corpus.
I recall that the Board of Supervisors also made a couple of very small tweaks at their May 6th meeting to Estrada’s recommended process to be even more generous to Corpus.
It’s possible Hanson Bridgett was picked in part because Jackie Speier worked as counsel there, in the late 2000s.
My basic assessment is that we’re seeing the full legal circus that is possible when one party (Corpus) has an unlimited litigation budget bankrolled by the other party (us taxpayers). Antics will continue until the gravy train ends.
The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, were adopted to govern lawyers’ conduct in 1983, and serve as models for the ethics rules in most jurisdictions. Rule 3.3 regulates Candor Toward The Tribunal and governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in tribunals. It also applies when lawyers represent a client in an ancillary proceeding, such as a deposition.
Essentially that Rule explains that an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. As pointed out in this Daily Post article, Corpus’ attorneys would counter the position of the Post, by trying to credibly assert they believe what they wrote to be true; they were in court and heard the federal judge. Yet they also know, however will deny with a straight face, that they are misstating what the judge both said and meant. In doing so they act unethically according to the standards of their profession.
Judges strive to be well informed and to make well informed decisions. Judge Chhabria read the materials presented to him to consider in the Corpus matter before him. Judge Chhabria understood how damaging the evidence is against Corpus was, and equally understood that she is far more likely to be removed from office than allowed to remain as Sheriff. Hence his clear comments.
As far as damages to Corpus, she chose her path. I would argue that had Corpus asked to be placed on leave during the proceedings, it would open the door to more flexibility by the County. However, continued slaps to the proverbial face of the County, denials of culpability and outright hostility have gotten Corpus exactly what she has received as far as strict adherence to the Measure A guidelines. Bad lawyering and strategic missteps don’t get rewarded as Corpus undoubtedly hopes for the best in a losing situation.
Well my, my my. The big Washington DC political lawyer wants to come to little old back water San Mateo County and school the local yokels on legal matters 101. I mean, we’uns must just be SO backwards in our little minded understandin’ of the law that the Sheriff had to bring out a big legal dog (at our expense, no doubt) to set us straight…. No thanks, Mr. DC legal man! Move forward, Supes! Keep going, and rid this County of this cancer!!!
Yes, Finally, you do need to schooled by the big dogs. Woof.
what a bunch of nonsense. The voters were fooled by Corpus. What they thought they were getting is NOT what happened in reality. What lead up to Measure A is civil rights violations of dozens of employees. The facts are, you don’t ignore the HR complaints of employees. Cordell report was to investigate HR complaints. The Kekker report was done for additional evidence.
You don’t hire close friends that travel together. What is interesting is that I don’t go on vacation with any of my colleagues or superiors. So just let the Sheriff run amuck.
What is load and clear. The same San Mateo County voters 90,000 of them asked the Board of Supervisors to make the Sheriff accountable for wrongdoing. Don’t ignore the CURRENT 2025 voters.
Listening to Mr. Perez’ hyper-babble, it is clear that his disjointed argument is nothing more than weak attempts to stay the course of Corpus’ prior ramblings. Mr. Perez did not offer any substantive evidence pertinent to Corpus’ actions and clear patterns of behavior; he did not deny what she had unquestionably done.
Mr. Perez didn’t go near the in custody deaths related to the lack of an executive to oversee corrections. Even though Corpus assembled a transition team to get such an executive, yet failed to do so. Well over two years and Corpus appears to have neglected her correctional oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Perez proved he was apparently untrustworthy and untruthful in his presentation, doing so after agreeing to a ten-minute time limit on his time in front of the Board. Mr. Perez gave the appearance that he could not be a man of his word. Mr. Perez appeared that he could not present his thoughts in a logical, simple fashion. He failed. Corpus has failed too…
What a complete joke! This over priced idiot lawyer thinks he is going to intimidate the Board of Supes into something. Wow!! Just another example of how CORRUPT this moron of a so called “Sheriff” is! She has been before multiple judges and has been shot down every single time. Wake up lady! You are cooked! Done! Exposed as the lying criminal you are! Get this scum out of office NOW! I have lost count on how many lawyers she has retained all at the Tax Payers Expense! ENOUGH
After great reflection, I realized that, in essence, Mr. Perez’ plea to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) actually asked them to each break the obligations and oaths of office they have sworn to uphold as elected officials. Mr. Perez’ letter to the BOS says Corpus’ counsel requests “that the Board consider pausing the controversial Measure A procedures”. He certainly reiterated that request in his public comments at the BOS meeting. That seemed to be his central point.
Truly however, there is nothing controversial about the Measure A procedures he mentions. Measure A was lawfully placed on the ballot, voted on and passed by more individuals than voted to elect Corpus to the office of sheriff. It’s not really controversial to even Corpus. It is more likely regrettable that it exists to Corpus.
Mr. Perez clearly asked the Board to disregard the obligations and requirements of the removal procedures that they lawfully adopted. I heard him as I listened and recalled that as I think back on the meeting. Mr. Perez championed to the BOS that they should join together to essentially disregard the requirements of the amended County Charter and act contrary to them. He did this based on all his years of lawyering and such; especially mentioning his federal experiences.
Yet after all, the County Charter is the law in the land in San Mateo County. To disregard it, even to “pause” the procedures, would be to break the law and disregard the voter approved Measure as well as the BOS approved procedures. They do not expressly, or implicitly, permit a pause; nowhere is that written nor authorized. Shame on you Mr. Perez; shame on you. Publicly advocating for others to break the law and disregard the obligations of their elected roles is shameful. Especially for an officer of the court. Shameful.
I just read Tom Perez’s Aug. 7th letter to Supervisor Canepa, and it’s predictably ridiculous.
Perez presupposes Constitutional violations in the Measure A process, but those are imaginary, as anyone with a basic knowledge of Constitutional law can see: No, Fourteenth Amendment due process rights cannot be violated by an administrative (non-criminal) proceeding, and there is no “life, liberty, or property” right abridged by being denied elective office. No, Measure A is not a “bill of attainder”, being neither a criminal conviction legislatively decreed nor a sanction applied only to one individual. No, Measure A is not an “ex post facto law”, that Constitutional prohibition being applicable only to criminal proceedings, not to mention that the malfeasance Corpus is accused of having been wrongful before Measure A passed.
The process is not “controversial” except in the minds (assuming minds) of Corpus’s legal team. It is the will of county voters.
No, “Judge Chhabra” [sic] did not say the Measure A process is predetermined, but, if he had, that would be at best dicta rather than a ruling, and the fact that Corpus’s Administration is crashing and burning isn’t exactly difficult to prognosticate.
“The voters overwhelmingly elected Sheriff Corpus in 2022”? Well, they even more overwhelmingly chose to implement Measure A.
I trust that our Supervisors were not swayed by this transparent flummery.
I would really like to know how the people that come in to speak at the board of supervisors meetings get their information. They are ill informed and say things like the Cordell report is hearsay and untrue the public was lied to.
The public will have a say in the civil grand jury process- add you that the Corpus team keeps stalling the civil grand jury and they keep tryjng to get that stopped also because Wagstaffe the DA is also biased? How else does a DA in any county enact a civil grand jury? How does the public weigh in? The people on the jury?
How is the Cordell report hearsay? The Kekker report names the same people that spoke to Cordell and they are all respected individuals that are or were sworn employees.
Dan Noyes was in the board meeting approaching people saying he was going to air stories in attempt to make them look bad.
Then corpus goes on abc7 news saying the county will be embarrassed if they proceed? How ? The only thing that seems embarrassing is that Corpus has not stepped down.
All of these last stitch efforts seem like stall tactics and methods ro intimidate people that will testify. What proof does Corpus have for any of the things that she did to the victims of retaliation, demotions, ph loc humiliations ? If Corpus is so confident why does she keep filing lawsuits to stall and/or stop a ballot measure. 90,000 INFORMED people voted and the victims in all of the investigations Cordell, Oppenheimer, Kekker- they all told the truth.
I for one am looking forward to hearing the testimonies. Everyone stay strong and focused . After 40 plus people testify, it will be hard to say everyone lies and one person is a victim? Corpus is an arrogant, delusional, selfish narcissist.
The Corpus attorneys want to ignored what lead up to this hapoen- Corpus was in office in2022- now. Yet they tell stories of events that may or may not have happened to Corpus when she was just starting at the office. Stories of people not employees at the department during her Sheriff tenure, not relevant to the retaliation events . Corpus hired at least 2 of the people retaliated against and they did not ever speak disrespectfully to her nor did anything that happened in 1990’s have anything to do with arresting staff or demoting firing current staff. Unrelated Drama events and tactics to deter attention away from the perpetrators. Will people believe these games? I think not. Nice try.
So Mister Political has been chose our little county to try and stay relevant and all he had in his arsenal was to come it, be a blow hard about his supposed bona fides (“I prosecuted Joe Arpio, look him up”), a feeble attempt to kiss Jackie Speier’s butt, and then drop a few racial epitaphs for a little spicy wow factor all while talking rambling gibberish? Solid choice Christy.
I’ve now watched Mr. Perez’s rhetorical at-bat during Board of Supervisors public comment, yesterday, and he predictably nowhere addressed either the Measure A proceeding’s seven misconduct charges or the grand jury accusation’s four overlapping misconduct charges.
Instead, he tells Corpus’s tale of fighting an entrenched problematic work culture, for twelve and a half minutes out of the ten he was generously given. And he says without evidence that the Measure A process is somehow wrongful and thus ought to be deferred until after the grand jury one, if not cancelled.
Very stirring, but aren’t defense litigators normally expected to, y’know, defend? Perhaps that norm doesn’t apply in a situation where all defense legal bills are getting shipped to us taxpayers, but I can’t remember that from law class.
Truth will prevail: This familiar “Cordell Report is hearsay” meme has been pushed along with “…and relies on anonymous sources” by Corpus’s legal team and sundry fans, continuously from November to now. It’s obvious nonsense.
First, hearsay is a legal doctrine about admissibility of evidence _in court_, and Cordell’s task was investigating ignored HR complaints, not presiding over a trial.
Second, even in trial context, it doesn’t mean what they’re implying (unverifiable gossip). A statement offered as evidence is hearsay if it was uttered outside the courtroom, but where the speaker cannot be produced in court. Hence the statement’s credibility cannot be established at trial, and the general rule (with many exceptions) says such statements are therefore inadmissible.
“Anonymous sources” is equally transparent flummery. The 40 employees Cordell interviewed were in no way anonymous; their names are merely redacted in the published version to protect them from retribution, but they are known and on the record by name. It should be noted that, if hypothetically they lied to Cordell, that is hardly free of consequence, even if it wouldn’t be perjury: As answers in an internal inquiry, those lies would lead to discipline if found out.
The people pushing these baseless notions can be divided, I guess, into Corpus’s legal team, who certainly know better, and countless dittoheads in the community who may just be useful fools.
The legal team’s suggestion, still, that complaining about Cordell’s report has relevance to either the Removal Hearing or the grand jury-initiated case is equally baseless. Neither proceeding attempts to use Cordell’s HR findings as evidence: It was never intended as court evidence. It was an HR investigation.
Yet, eight months later, they’re still flogging that dead horse — I guess, just to see who can be easily distracted from what the actual charges are.