(Read the brief by Corpus’ attorneys.)
(Read the county’s response brief)
Attorneys for embattled San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus appear worried that the Board of Supervisors might fire her this week, and they’ve asked a judge to halt her termination.
At a hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday (Sept. 23) in Department 11 of the San Mateo County Superior Court, her lawyers will ask for a stay on any action taken by the Board of Supervisors to remove her from office.
The judge will be Nina Shapirshteyn, who last month refused Corpus’ request to halt the hearings the board had set up in order to give the sheriff a chance to refute the allegations against her.
The hearing officer who presided over those hearings, retired judge James Emerson, is expected to submit his advisory opinion to the Board of Supervisors any day. Once they receive it, they can call a hearing in as few as 24 hours to fire Corpus.
Corpus’ attorneys say in a brief that Emerson could submit his advisory opinion any day, and that’s why they’re rushing to court in an attempt to halt the process.
In fact, they thought he could issue his advisory opinion last week, but it didn’t happen.
In a brief filed Sept. 15, one of her lawyers, Matthew Frauenfeld, wrote, “The hearing officer’s advisory opinion could issue as soon as this week, and the board could act immediately thereafter. Without interim relief, the board could remove an elected constitutional officer before this court can decide her pending constitutional challenges — rendering judicial review moot and extinguishing this court’s jurisdiction.”
The board has been attempting to fire Corpus since last year after receiving a report last year from retired Judge Ladoris Cordell, who interviewed nearly 40 employees. Cordell concluded that Corpus had created a hostile work environment through intimidation and retaliation, had an affair with her Chief of Staff Victor Aenlle, and used homophobic and racial slurs.
The day the report was released, Corpus ordered the arrest of one of her biggest critics, deputies union president Carlos Tapia, on timecard fraud allegations. However, the District Attorney declined to file charges against Tapia, saying no crime had been committed.
Last year, the supervisors felt that recalling Corpus would take too much time, so they asked the voters in March to temporarily amend the county charter to allow them to fire the sheriff after giving her due process. The measure passed with 84% of the vote.
However, six months have passed since the measure was approved and Corpus remains in office. The process of giving her an opportunity to make her case has been slow, with a 10-day appeal hearing occurring last month.
Meanwhile, the county has been paying Corpus’ legal fees. However, the county has refused to say how much it has spent in legal fees for her or the county, which hired outside counsel to handle the case.
The brief filed by Corpus’ counsel is correct in that the court has discretion to file “interim relief.” Yet for the court to do so, to actually enact interim relief, is not prudent.
The logic of Judge Chhabria‘s ruling in August remains true. In pertinent part he powerfully held, “…the Court is skeptical that Corpus will ever be able to prevail on her claims that the removal process violates her federal constitutional rights. But even if there were serious questions going to the merits of her claims, the Court would decline to take the extraordinary step of interfering with an ongoing local government process, particularly given that Corpus could (if she were somehow able to prevail) get most of the relief she seeks in this lawsuit after the fact.”
Judicial review may continue after Corpus’ removal, if the Board votes to remove. There are no serious questions going to the merits of Corpus’ claims.
I should clarify my assertion that, “The brief filed by Corpus’ counsel is correct in that the court has discretion to file ‘interim relief.’ Yet for the court to do so, to actually enact interim relief, is not prudent.” The court could do anything. However, the court has a responsibility to do the correct and proper thing, in accordance with the law. It is not just imprudent to make a decision to stay the Board’s impending action, to do so would likely be a reversible error to issue such a ruling.
Folks should make the time to read the Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Stay in the case (25-CIV-04319). It quite clearly explains the situation, absent the clear and apparent biases of Petitioner’s counsel.
Noone in any position should be allowed to stay employed under these circumstances EVER. There should be an immediate leave of absence for a Sheriff to go into and an interim Sheriff be designated should this circumstance arise where there are MULTIPLE investigations and 30-40 people testifying of wrongdoing, damages and retaliation. This is a travesty and such a waste of tax payer money to sit here for over a year allowing these people access to confidential legal files on EVERYONE.
Does this new executive team have any kind of background check? Can anyone tell what in the world they are doing?
Can the Sheriff stay employed if she doesn’t go to the office? Why does she want to work in an organization that doesn’t want her? Why does she want to stay employed when the county doesn’t want her? So many questions about this situation that make me convinced that she is mentally unstable and unfit for this position.
She continue to make terrible decisions that impact the county employees. She is a sick vial person. I pray every day this situation ends either she finally realizes the end goal is not possible at this point and resigns or the Board can fire here in the next couple weeks and she is home appealing all her wasteful crazy court cases.
When your job received multiple votes of no confidence, multiple requests to resign from county officials, state leaders and city council leaders and then your firing has to be put on a countywide ballot your time is up.
She is beyond overdue for leaving and/or being fired from her position. This is a disgrace to everyone.
This incompetent, retaliatory, unethical liar needs to go NOW! It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt how completely corrupt and vile Corpus is. She has single handedly (With her little boy toy Vicky) destroyed was was the greatest agency in San Mateo County! Let the civil and criminal proceedings begin to destroy her and the so called “Dr.”
It doesn’t help to have unlicensed amateur lawyers making comments on this forum. I wouldn’t go to a pretend doctor for advice. I wouldn’t fly on a jetliner with a pretend pilot. Go ahead and offer your opinions. That’s fine. But don’t pretend you understand the duties of a judge and other legal concepts.
oh, so you have nothing to say?
The Sheriff’s office employs approximately 800 people (according to Google) which would put it at a mid-sized company in the private sector. If a Board of Directors, or leadership team were to see any of these:
• Votes of no confidence from peers (Deputy Sheriff’s Assoc, & Captains)
• Votes of no confidence from clients (Millbrae, San Carlos)
• Entrapment (Tapia)
• Revolving door/persistent vacancies (Guiney, Kunkel, Hsuing, Monaghan etc)
When executives are repeatedly fired/resign within months of accepting a new role, that is either astonishingly poor judgement of personnel, or a complete inability to lead. A CEO usually has ONE shakeup. Firing their own team does not build confidence. Any ONE of these circumstances would get a private sector CEO fired.
Since this is government, the extra procedures to ensure fairness in removal are time consuming and amazingly expensive. We need County regulations changed so that our tax dollars are NOT used to fund these bizarre motions, hearings, appeals and trials. As a taxpayer, don’t I have rights to get the service I’m paying for? Why do I have to keep paying for this individual’s “pending constitutional challenges”?
I’m looking forward to Judge Emerson’s written opinion and the Board of Supervisor’s final decision. They need to stop the cash drain from this current Sheriff and start the search for a new candidate.
The voters have spoken: 82,622 voted her IN. 90,900 voted her OUT. We would like this finished.
Could not have said it any better, you are 100% right. She’s been found guilty, her rights for a county paid defense attorney/attorneys should have ended once that was established. Our tax dollars are needed in other critical areas. Saying that we should also be looking at our State and our Governor Newsom….why are our tax dollars being used to defy our President & Ice, to house and protect criminals in Sanctuary Cities, for transgender surgeries of felon’s in our prisons, etc. State tax dollars are being used to protect the rights of illegal aliens while taking away the rights of American & California citizens. A Govenor is suppose to represent all the citizen’s in his state…..Govenor Newsom has no regard for the over 6 million Voters who believe in and voted for President Donald Trump. Instead of considering those voters he has an ongoing personal vendetta against Republican voters and our President. Each time he defy’s Federal & California laws Californians have to foot the bill, we are being taxed to death by a disgraceful, disobedient power hungry govenor who wants nothing more than to inflict his beliefs on a state in turmoil both fundamentally & financially.
GW: You would have a telling point if even one commenter were dispensing legal advice in violation of the UPL statutes, but that premise is nonsense, so your entire objection falls apart. Certainly, all present should be wary of self-administered Dunning-Krugering: I hope and trust folks are. The competence and relevance (not to mention coherence and literacy) of comments on law here varies greatly, but when was it ever otherwise?
And, no, by no means is anything said here on the legal issues just “opinion’. But I’m sure you already knew that.
Rick, you’ve demonstrated circular logic. You say that my premise is nonsense, so my “objection” falls apart. But you’ve offered no new information.
How is what I’m saying “nonsense”?
I’d rather take advice from an attorney who has three years of law school and who has passed the Bar.
Everyone is free to offer their opinions about this case. I’m not objecting to that in any way. But when you cite statutes that you don’t understand, when who miss case law that pertains to your case, then you mislead people.
I’m not saying you’re intentionally misleading people. You’ve just got a long way to go to master the law.
So stick to offering opinions and let attorneys and judges litigate the law.
GW: Your comment presupposed legal advice in its opening sentence, the rest depending on that assumption. But nobody has offered legal advice.
If your problem is you don’t understand what is and is not legal advice, a term defined in the UPL (unauthorized practice of law) statutes, that’s where you should perhaps start.
Your objection to my citing statutes would also be more impressive if, for starters, I had cited statutes.
Maybe you should quit while you’re behind, sir or ma’am.
Meanwhile, studying and attempting to correctly understand both statute and caselaw is a worthwhile pursuit, and (in the view of some) a necessary part of citizenship. I of course consult and pay for attorneys, when and if I need them — but, if you’d rather hire them each and every time you wish to understand any legal matter, go, you!
Why are we the taxpayers paying for her lawyers . Why??
Everyone is obviously coping w this situation and venting, sharing thoughts one might call it “being human”. Practical people can see this situation for what it is. This long overdue legal battle has impacted county funds, peoples jobs, public safety for being an irresponsible so called leader sheriff and created mass chaos.
This is a very unqualified sheriff and she just proves her lack of skills and knowledge as she manipulates the public, the courts and her open ended budget of covered legal fees.
Life will be good without this piece of garbage in the news. She could have had a much more peaceful exit, instead she chose this utterly catastrophic path forward that will result in severe consequences in the years to come.
Do I need to be a lawyer to see this situation clearly? no. Do I believe or respect Dan Noyes so called twisted journalism? no. Do I believe what the Mercury news is publishing on this? no! Do I think the 38 people who testified are credible and truthful? YES! There is nothing to gain for these victims and the news persons shaming these victims have some SERIOUS ethical issues. We aren’t talking about a couple of people this impacted, this impacted multiple people on some
Serious levels- financially, emotionally and legal violations. Let’s see how clear that is after when a judges opinion is released. Maybe he saw things differently, doubt it.
That woman is a disgrace to the Uniform she’s wearing and a bad representative of law enforcement, the board of Supervisors should act decisively and remove her.
As someone who had to endure her tyranny, I can say that I’m overjoyed at this process finally coming to a conclusion. Corpus is a vile person. Back when she was a Sergeant, one of her employees cane up to me and said “Be very careful around her. She likes to accuse people & get them fired, so be very careful what you say or do.” It was just 6 months after that when she tried to get me fired. Fortunately it didn’t work, but that’s when I learned the hard way what kind of person she is. And soon the County will finally be free of her.
She needs to face reality and realize the people want her gone as well as her own organization along with the county leaders and she still doesn’t get it..the people have no confidence in her as well as her own organization so she needs to go and quit trying to stay in a position that she is clearly unsuited for