Latest news with #Corpus
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared.
Time Magazine
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Why American Revolutionaries Fought to Protect Habeas Corpus
The United States has recently witnessed challenges to the right to due process and a fair trial, including a recent explicit threat to habeas corpus by White House official Stephen Miller, and the actual deportation and imprisonment of people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia far from home. American revolutionaries feared such threats. Among the grievances they laid at the feet of British King George III in the Declaration of Independence was that he was 'transporting' American colonists 'beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.' The founders believed that government suspension of habeas corpus was antithetical to the basic rights long enshrined in cherished documents like the Magna Carta. In 1776, these fears came to fruition in the case of American Patriot Ebenezer Smith Platt, a man who was a transatlantic celebrity in his own time but who is little remembered today. Transported across the seas and imprisoned far from home, Platt had his right to habeas corpus—and his freedom—curtailed by what many viewed as the actions of a tyrannical king. His story became a political lightning rod. Today, Platt is a reminder of the fact that habeas corpus has long been seen as the bedrock of rights to due process under the law. Even British government officials who opposed American independence warned that suspending Platt's right to habeas corpus posed a danger to everyone. When Platt eventually gained his freedom, it was due in no small part to public pressure from such elected officials combined with the efforts of well-connected friends and constant press coverage. Read More: What Is Habeas Corpus and How Is It Under Threat By the Trump Administration? About a year before the Declaration of Independence, Platt relocated from New York to Georgia where he became active in Patriot politics. In 1775, Platt was among a group of Georgia and South Carolina Patriots who used an armed American privateer ship to seize the cargo of a British merchant ship—mostly gunpowder, arms, and bullets—on behalf of the Patriot-run Provincial Congress of Georgia. A few months later, Platt was on another mission for Georgia. This time, he sailed for the French island colony of Saint-Domingue (present day Haiti) to trade for arms and ammunition for Patriot military forces. But his ship was seized by the British and taken to Jamaica. There, Platt encountered Richard Maitland, captain of the British merchant ship whose cargo he had helped seize off the coast of Georgia. When Maitland identified Platt, British Vice Admiral Clark Gayton seized Platt's ship, its crew, and Platt, placing him in chains to await trial. The Jamaican court set Platt free, finding that he could not be tried there when the alleged crime occurred in Georgia, but suggested that Gayton might send Platt on a naval ship for trial in England. Gayton seized Platt again and set sail from Jamaica, keeping him in shackles for months aboard his ship before transferring him to another Royal Navy frigate, which transferred him to a third naval ship headed to England. After months at sea, Platt reached Portsmouth, England, around the time Britons learned the news of the Declaration of Independence. Instead of being sent ashore, Platt was transferred three times from royal naval ship to royal naval ship in the harbor. The transfers were deliberate attempts to avoid due process. If Platt could not be located, attorneys could not serve his imprisoners a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf, and he could be imprisoned indefinitely. After eight months imprisoned in shackles aboard six different ships, Platt managed to connect with a sympathetic attorney who asserted his right to habeas corpus and forced his release for trial. Platt finally made it ashore in England. But his timing could not have been worse. Platt happened to set foot on English soil just before Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act, or Treason Act, of 1777. This legislation empowered British authorities to arrest and imprison people 'charged with, or Suspected of, the Crime of Treason, committed in any of His Majesty's Colonies or Plantations in America,' or 'Acts of Treason or Piracy' on the high seas. Platt fit these criteria. He became one of the first, and best publicized, of what would eventually be hundreds of American prisoners in Britain who would be denied both the rights of habeas corpus and the legal status of prisoners of war. Allowed neither a fair trial nor military prisoner exchange, they would be imprisoned 'at the king's pleasure.' For most of these prisoners, this meant remaining imprisoned until a 1782 Act of Parliament changed their official status. It is hard to overstate how treasured the right to habeas corpus was in British law by the revolutionary era. It predated the Magna Carta, though it was also enshrined within it. It was the cornerstone of the due process that entitled every person to have their arrest proven lawful; the process that protected people from unjust and indefinite imprisonment. Numerous treason acts had been passed over hundreds of years of English history, but in previous acts, those accused of treason had the right to habeas corpus. The Treason Act of 1777 not only suspended habeas corpus for those accused under the act, it upended hundreds of years of British legal precedence. On both sides of the Atlantic, people worried about the new precedent for tyranny set by the Act and Platt's imprisonment. British Member of Parliament Edmund Burke declared that the Act 'has this distinguished evil in it, that it is the first partial suspension of the Habeas Corpus which has been made.' British MP John Wilkes, who did not share Burke's politics, agreed. Like Burke, Wilkes asked whether a government 'capable of thus trampling on our most sacred laws' can 'be too narrowly watched, too deeply suspected, too strongly guarded against?' Suspending habeas corpus for one group of people threatened tyranny for all. Read More: Read Conservative Judge's Full Opinion Rebuking Trump Administration Over Abrego Garcia Case Platt went on to spend 14 months imprisoned in London's infamous Newgate Prison, living in a state of destitution, depending on charity for food and basic necessities. Chief among his benefactors was American wax sculptor and undercover spy, Patience Wright who lived and worked in London. Wright launched a campaign on Platt's behalf urging influential people like Benjamin Franklin to help him. Even with all his diplomatic ties, Franklin was powerless to assist Platt because of the Treason Act's suspension of habeas corpus. Newspaper editors and pamphleteers circulated stories about the horrible conditions in the British prisons holding thousands of Americans. They detailed how starving prisoners resorted to eating anything from snails to grass to the marrow in old bones. British as well as American voices raised against mistreatment of American prisoners grew louder throughout 1777. The media storm and outraged public response played an important role in securing Platt's release from Newgate in March of 1778. Upon gaining his freedom, he married Patience Wright's daughter and traveled to France, where Franklin helped arrange passage for the couple to cross the Atlantic to the United States. Once there, Ebenezer enlisted to fight for the Patriots, taking up arms against the king that he and many of his contemporaries viewed as tyrannical, not least for transporting Americans to overseas prisons and suspending habeas corpus. Although he was a Patriot, Platt was no hero. He was an enslaver, a bigamist (he later married a second wife without divorcing his first), and a bit of a grifter (he died owing Daniel Boone a great deal of money). But the right to habeas corpus did not depend upon good behavior or an admirable character then, nor should it now. The once-famous case of Ebenezer Smith Platt reminds us that widespread attention to acts of tyranny that violate foundational rights is critical to maintaining those rights. Such attention, among the press, among concerned private citizens, and among elected representatives of the people, helped free Pratt. Careful attention to questions of habeas corpus today may inspire similar outrage and action in defense of our most cherished rights. Zara Anishanslin is a historian at the University of Delaware. Her latest book The Painter's Fire: A Forgotten History of the Artists Who Championed the American Revolution comes out July 1, 2025. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
CBS News
25-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
San Mateo Sheriff Christina Corpus pushes back, releases report criticizing investigation
San Mateo Sheriff Christina Corpus released a report Friday rebutting the investigation that led to a special election against her and is suing to get access to the full document. The report by retired judge LaDoris Cordell was released in November 2024. In her report, Cordell interviewed about 40 current and former employees at the sheriff's office and concluded, "Lies, secrecy, intimidation, retaliation, conflicts of interest, and abuses of authority are all the hallmarks of the Corpus administration. Corpus should step down." Lawyers for Corpus claim the report is "fundamentally flawed." They retained former Judge Burke E. Strunsky to evaluate the report from Judge Cordell. The analysis from former Judge Strunsky was released on Friday, April 25. In the introduction, Strunsky states he was not retained to analyze the truth of the witness statements but "to assess whether the Cordell Report- considered in isolation-meets the standards of transparency, evidentiary rigor, and procedural fairness that due process requires before the Board of Supervisors may exercise the extraordinary authority, conferred by Proposition A, to remove an elected sheriff. " In the report, which can be viewed in full below, Strunsky points to the use of anonymous witnesses, the lack of direct quotes, and hearsay as proof that more investigation is needed into the allegations of misconduct. Saying in his conclusion, Strunsky said, "Cordell's investigation has undeniable value - but only as the point of departure, not the destination. Her report surfaces a host of serious allegations, yet it rests on an evidentiary lattice too frail to carry the constitutional load of overturning an election." Corpus has refused to resign following the allegations, claiming the attacks on her are politically motivated. The sheriff has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the county alleging discrimination and harassment. In March, voters in San Mateo County passed Measure A with 84% of the vote. Measure A is a charter amendment granting the Board of Supervisors temporary authority to remove the Sheriff.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Embattled San Mateo County sheriff rehires former chief of staff
SAN MATEO COUNTY, Calif. (KRON) — San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who could soon be removed from her job, has brought back her former chief of staff, with whom she reportedly had a romantic relationship. Corpus said she rehired Victor Aenlle as reserve deputy, crediting his 17 years of experience in the role. The San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association said the rehire makes their skin crawl. Eliot Storch, a San Mateo County sheriff's deputy and board secretary for the county Sheriff's Association, said, 'It's a middle finger to everybody who cares about morals and ethics.' 'DSA has significant doubts that Aenlle is in fact a qualified reserved deputy,' Storch continued. 'All that matters is that Sheriff Corpus hired her alleged boyfriend to be in a role, despite no one wanting her to be here and despite his behavior.' DUI suspect with 3 prior convictions faces murder charge in Brisbane crash Aenlle was removed as chief of staff last year after a scathing report accused Corpus of having a romantic relationship with him, creating a toxic work environment and creating jobs for Aenlle without publicizing the job opening. Corpus has denied all of the allegations. In March, San Mateo County voters passed Measure A, giving county supervisors the authority to remove the embattled sheriff. In a statement to KRON4, Corpus said there's a backlog of concealed carry weapon licenses that need to be addressed. The task will be part of Aenlle's job as a reserve officer. Storch said this is all a 'power play,' because there are plenty of other qualified people to fulfill the role. The Sheriff's Association said the best thing Corpus can do for the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is to quit. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Embattled San Mateo County sheriff rehires former chief of staff, leaked memo reveals
The Brief A memo shows Sheriff Christina Corpus has rehired Victor Aenlle, who she is alleged to have had an inappropriate relationship with. Aenlle is back to help process concealed weapons permits, according to the memo. Last month, voters gave the San Mateo Co. Board of Supervisors to remove Corpus. SAN MATEO, Calif. - The embattled San Mateo County sheriff has rehired her alleged paramour, Victor Aenlle, to act as a reserve deputy, KTVU has learned. What we know Aenlle, the sheriff's former chief of staff, is back to help process concealed weapons permits, according to a leaked memo, signed by Sheriff Christina Corpus. Aenlle was removed as chief of staff last year. "Please move [Aenlle] over to the active list and please ensure he is receiving all correspondence related to the reserve unit," Corpus' memo reads. She concludes by telling the department to let Undersheriff Dan Perea know if there are any questions. Rank-and-file unions maintain that Sheriff Corpus "continues to practice the open corruption and defiant mismanagement" that will lead to her ouster. The backstory Last month, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that would allow San Mateo County's Board of Supervisors to remove Corpus, who has been under fire for months, accused of creating a toxic work environment, using racial and homophobic slurs, and having an inappropriate intimate relationship with Aenlle, who she would later promote to assistant sheriff. The supervisors have until 2028 to act. In addition, San Mateo executive officer Mike Callagy filed a $10.5 million claim against the county in March, saying that Corpus and Aenlle conspired to make false and defamatory statements against him. Corpus has denied the allegations against her, saying she's been targeted for being Latina and a woman in power. Last January, Corpus filed a claim of her own against San Mateo County, saying she's been discriminated against, harassed and unfairly treated. Since the scandal broke, the fact that Aenlle was Corpus' civilian chief of staff, was a point of contention. A scathing report by a retired judge found that Corpus and Aenlle's personal relationship, beyond friendship, was a conflict of interest. The report claimed that Aenlle has more experience as a Coldwell Banker associate real estate broker than he has in law enforcement. The report claimed Corpus violated policy when she repeatedly recommended Aenlle for pay increases. Furthermore, the report alleged Aenlle abused authority within the department, creating a separate conflict of interest in negotiating a lease of property for a sheriff's department substation brokered by Coldwell Banker Real Estate – a company Aenlle has worked as an associate broker for. The retired judge also concluded Aenlle, as a civilian employee, was not authorized to wear a badge resembling the gold badges of sworn employees, which is a misdemeanor offense. Following the release of the report, Corpus further sparked controversy by elevating Aenlle to the position of assistant sheriff. Since the turmoil began, several have called for the sheriff's resignation. The sheriff has been steadfast in her refusal to do so. What they're saying The Deputy Sheriff's Association and the San Mateo County Organization of Sheriff's Seargeants released a statement about the rehiring. "Rehiring Victor Aenlle, the person who sparked the original complaints of nepotism and harassment, along with the intent to spend taxpayer dollars on massage chairs, once again demonstrates her disrespect for both the community and the office she holds," the statement read in part. The statement concludes by saying they look forward to new leadership in order to restore trust and transparency. KTVU has reached out to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for comment on this latest development, but we have not heard back. A county spokesperson said they had no comment on this story. KTVU's Henry Lee contributed to this story
