Police Commissioner Yanez Exploits His Position to Stalk and Sue Victim of His Wife’s Thefts

A surveillance video pretty much locks Luigi Mangione into the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in front of the Manhattan 6^th Avenue Hilton. Luckily for Luigi, a San Francisco public defender has created a novel approach to challenge overwhelming video evidence of a crime.

Step #1: Claim that the obvious was not a crime and accuse the victim/reportee of filing a false police report

I’m talking about Ilona Solomon, the wife of SF Police Commissioner Jesus Yanez. As I have written extensively about, Solomon has been filmed three times stealing co-building owner Kristen Guhde’s surveillance cameras. Incredibly, as Solomon was escaping with her third stolen camera from Guhde, the freshly stolen camera was still filming in her hands as she lectured Guhde that:

1) The taking and permanently depriving a person of their property is not stealing,

2) If Guhde reported the theft, that would be considered a false police report and harassment of Solomon, and

3) Guhde was a “slutty c^nt.” Way to represent the SF Public Defender’s Office, Ilona.

Per Solomon’s SF public defender roadmap, Luigi should argue that terminating a person’s life with bullets into their back is not murder. And Luigi should accuse and sue the Hilton Hotel personnel that came to Thompson’s aid for making false descriptions of him to NYPD.

Step #2: Sue the victim you stole from for harassing you

Unbelievably, after Solomon stole three cameras from Guhde, Solomon and Commissioner Yanez have filed a civil stay-away against Guhde for harassing them by reporting Solomon’s criminal stealing to SFPD. Thus, Luigi should sue United HealthCare CEO Brian Thompson for ruining his life.

Step #3: Stalk the victim/reportee

Solomon and Commissioner Yanez have taken further steps that are not available to Luigi. Public records request show that the couple obtained every SFPD report that Guhde was named in. Remarkably, for some reason Solomon and Yanez have an interest in a traffic accident Guhde was a witness to.

Civilians might be unaware about the inaccessibility of local law enforcement police reports. If NYPD wanted to learn if Luigi Mangione was named in any SFPD, LAPD, or Oakland PD incident reports, they do not have independent computer access. NYPD investigators must contact each police department’s investigators and have them search “Luigi Mangione” in their database and then relay the computer results.

This raises two issues:

1) How did Yanez come to possess the SFPD incident number for every report Guhde was named in, even if the incident was as minor as being a witness to a traffic accident? Either Yanez, as a police commissioner conducted a personal computer search, or someone within SFPD leaked this information to him.

2) What is Yanez’s purpose for being in possession of these computer records? This does not fall under the scope of Yanez’s duties as a police commissioner, and it appears to be personal in nature. The fact that Yanez emailed information about Guhde from his personal email to his police commission email makes it appear he is attempting to frame Guhde’s personal records as police commission business.

More, SFPD Department General Order 1.01 (a), police commissioners are defined as members of the Department. General Order 10.08 (D) (4) states that “No member shall access computer history information for curiosity, personal or political purposes.”^[1] Clearly, Yanez has breached this general order, and as a violator, must recuse himself from rendering disciplinary actions to any future accusation against an SFPD officer for using “computer history for personal purposes.”

SFPD Chief Scott would suspend or fire any officer that used police reports as a basis for a civil suit against a reportee. Why should Yanez get yet another pass?

Step #4: Personally use confidential SFPD bodycam footage, lie that you have it, and get SFPD Chief Scott’s administration to protect you

In one of my recent articles, I described how Yanez and Solomon accessed confidential SFPD bodycam footage and personally used it in their civil suit against Guhde. I obtained the photo (below) from Commissioner Yanez’s civil suit.

Numerous SFPD officers claimed that their bodycam footage would document the couple criminally harbored a fleeing felon and criminally interfered with SFPD’s investigation on March 13, 2024 (SFPD#: 240 163 624). Yet, SFPD Chief Scott has blocked this same bodycam footage from the public’s eyes. So how did Yanez obtain the footage and why does he get to use if for a personal matter?

Despite the 100% chance that Yanez is in possession of a portion of the bodycam footage from the March 13^th incident, a public records response to Commissioner Yanez’s emails (below) 100% documents he lied to SFPD Sergeant Stacy Youngblood about being in possession of the said bodycam excerpts.

Jesus, please explain how you used the photo for your civil suit but were never in possession of “any of the BWC of the incident?”

This follows Yanez’s lies at the November 6, 2024 police commission meeting when he claimed that his current home was doxed by the police union when they posted video of Ilona stealing the surveillance cameras. Yanez and Solomon do not reside in the home that was filmed. The couple moved out over 6 months ago, which means Yanez was lying to the public.

Step #5: Get the police chief’s administration to hide your crimes

To gain clarity on how Yanez obtained the video, I issued a public records request to SFPD inquiring who requested bodycam from the March 13^th incident. SFPD responded that they could not release the list of people that requested this footage because there was still an “open investigation.” (Into Yanez and Solomon for interfering?)

SFPD’s response is nonsensical for two reasons:

1) I wasn’t requesting any information about the case, only who had requested bodycam footage from the incident, and

2) At the November 6, 2024 police commission meeting, Chief Scott said there was no open investigationinto the March 13, 2024 incident. SFPD can’t have it both ways. Chief Scott cannot say there is no investigation and then SFPD’s Legal Division claiming there is an open investigation. It sure sounds like the SFPD Chief is still protecting Yanez.

Step #6: Exploit your position as police commissioner

After SFPD did not provide his wife with SFPD incident reports involving Ghude, Yanez exploited his position as commissioner to try and obtain them. For what purpose do Solomon and Yanez need these reports other than retaliating against Guhde for assisting SFPD’s pursuit of a fleeing violent felon?

Not getting the response Yanez wanted from his November 8^th email to the Sergeant Youngblood on the police commission and SFPD Legal’s Lieutenant Beauchamp, Yanez continued to flex his muscles as commissioner to obtain police reports.

Obviously, Yanez (below) is confusing Chief Scott’s decision not to investigate him for harboring a fleeing felon and for interfering with SFPD’s arrest, with Scott deeming him innocent. If Yanez really wants to “absolve the ongoing allegations” against him, he can either a) ask the chief to release SFPD officers’ bodycams on his actions, or b) release the portions of the bodycam footage that he used in his civil suit versus Guhde…… but he is not in possession of. LOL.

Why Commissioner Yanez must resign

On March 13^th, while Solomon and Commissioner Yanez were criminally harboring a fleeing suspect, Guhde rightfully assisted SFPD by allowing them into the common areas of the building where the suspect had fled. Guhde has paid a heavy price for helping SFPD. Solomon and Yanez have abused their positions to repeatedly retaliate against her.

Only after my videos of Solomon’s criminal thefts were viewed by over 100,000 people on Twitter, did Chief Scott allow a criminal investigation into—only-- the thefts portion of Solomon’s crimes. SFPD investigators determined there is probable cause to arrest Solomon, and I believe DA Brooke Jenkins has handled this open prosecution properly.

However, by Chief Scott not releasing the video of Yanez and Solomon’s criminal interference with SFPD on March 13^th, he has denied the public a true perspective on how unsuitable this couple is to represent SF. And by not investigating the couple’s series of retaliations against Guhde, Scott has empowered the couple to continue their reign of terror.

Police work has changed dramatically since Scott entered LAPD. But one thing has remained constant, people enter law enforcement, to standup for victims, the oppressed and the exploited. Guhde has clearly been exploited by Yanez and Solomon’s crimes and harassment. Meanwhile, Chief Scott has substituted city family politics over the elements of policing he entered the profession for—protecting the less fortunate

Chief Scott, stop protecting this unscrupulous couple. Release the March 13^th officers’ bodycams that document Solomon and Yanez’s crimes.

---

^[1] The police commission did not place a comma after “personal.” It’s technically optional, but a now-Superior Court judge once shared with a famous estate case that detrimentally affected a heir because a comma did not appear before “and/or” of two siblings.