#sheriff-christina-corpus

#sheriff-christina-corpus

"Although vehemently denied by appellant and Victor Aenlle, the evidentiary record is highly suggestive that appellant Sheriff Corpus and Mr. Aenlle were in a romantic extra-marital relationship," Emerson wrote in the report. "Corpus elevated her own interest in the close personal relationship she held with Mr. Aenlle above her obligation to appoint, recruit, select, and/or retain based upon merit and in conformity with the principles of equal opportunity."

His lawyers state in the suit, "Dr. Aenlle was not grounded in legitimate employment considerations or budgetary concerns but rather were motivated by hostility to his political viewpoints; namely, supporting Sheriff Corpus and her agenda of change, which stood to disrupt the corrupt and nepotic behavior of the San Mateo County Government, to the detriment of those who benefited from it."

"Until now, Sheriff Corpus has refrained from fully responding to her accusers out of respect for employee privacy and a desire to maintain the integrity of internal processes, but the time has come to bring the truth to light."

The First Amendment Coalition states that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors must open Sheriff Christina Corpus's removal hearings to the public, as mandated by Measure A.

Strunsky highlighted that the investigative report's reliance on uncorroborated claims from anonymous sources severely undermines its credibility and objectivity, raising concerns about its findings.