Petrelis Files

Castro Supervisor's $26,000 Restraining Order Now Online

Voters in District 8 are asking more and more about potential debates between myself and the incumbent holding the Castro's seat on the Board of Supervisors, and they just don't grasp the granular specifications the Supervisor exacted in the restraining order issued last year, after I verbally explain the details.

Btw, be sure to attend my campaign for supervisor kickoff on Saturday, April 5 at noon at the public toilet at Jane Warner Plaza, near Castro and Market Streets.

(Taken on October 26, 2012.)

He abused the power of his office to have the City spend at least $26,000 having the sheriff, the police and district attorney all come after with the full force of the law enforcement agencies because I took the Supervisor's photo of him at a sink in a public restroom at City Hall.

(Printed on August 5, 2013. Credit: Brant Ward, SF Chronicle.)

 (Printed on October 3, 2013. Credit: Michael Macor, SF Chronicle.)

 (Printed on March 9, 2014. Credit: Lea Suzuki, SF Chronicle.)

As I've said previously, similar photos of homeless folks who aren't lawyers or hold elective office with tremendous sway over the budgets for the sheriff, cops and DA, have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and no staff photographer has been charged with violating penal code section 647(j)(1). There is a police investigation ongoing over the paper's photos, and that is only because I kvetched to Chief Greg Suhr, and we'll if anything comes of it.

Just a reminder about the two-tier approach to law enforcement in San Francisco, at least when it comes to taking photos in public restrooms. Why was I charged and put through the legal system, while practically the same thing that landed me hot water is behavior abundantly duplicated and on display in the Hearst-owned daily?

Because Lady Justice lifted up her blindfold and saw who the subjects of the photos were and who was doing the picture-taking.

To give the voters and political junkies the, um, full picture of what the Supervisor exacted in his vendetta carried out by the DA regarding the protective order and why there will be no debates between myself and the incumbent, I am posting the order for all to read. The only way this can be amended is if a judge agrees to do so, and that would be over the strong objections of the DA and the Supervisor. Highly unlikely to happen, right? It's a long way from today to November 4 and for all I know circumstances may eventually allow for a debate or two before election day.

Here's what the taxpayers of San Francisco paid $26,000 for over an eight-month legal ordeal at the instigation of the District 8 incumbent: