Public Records Response Raises Questions About Carter-Oberstone and SF Standard's Honesty

Police Commission records show no evidence officer’s name was “temporarily” unredacted

Recap:

In mid-September, Michael Barba of The Standard wrote an article claiming he uncovered the name of SFPD officer Christopher Kosta who was being investigated for not correctly recording his perception of the race of the people he conducted traffic stops on.  I followed The Standard’s alleged trail through public documents and found that Kosta’s name did not appear on any public documents.  It appeared that the only way The Standard could have accessed Kosta’s confidential file was through a leak— which means someone criminally violated the Brown Act.

Kosta’s disciplinary case had been assigned to Police Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone.  In a separate and documentable criminal violation of the Brown Act, Carter-Oberstone posted his thoughts on Kosta’s confidential case on Twitter.  On September 26, 2023, I published an article presenting the overwhelming evidence that Carter-Oberstone was the criminal leaker of Kosta’s name.

On Twitter that same day, Carter-Oberstone concocted an alibi for The Standard.  Somehow SFPD hacked into the Police Commission’s website, a separate government entity, and for a brief moment “mistakenly” exposed the officer’s name.

To be clear, I never accused Carter-Oberstone of leaking “documents.”  My accusation is he leaked confidential “information” and possibly presented confidential files for The Standard to see and/or photograph.

Prior to Carter-Oberstone’s September 26^th tweet, Mike Barba had never previously mentioned the gigantic fact that Kosta’s unredacted name was mistakenly posted and then redacted on the Police Commission website. But, after Carter-Oberstone’s tweet, on October 5^th, anonymous staff writers at The Standard parroted Carter-Oberstone’s alibi.  The fact no writer, or the editor, would directly associate themselves with defending Barba’s original article, is evidence in itself that The Standard is concerned about Carter-Oberstone’s integrity.

Essentially, The Standard wanted readers to believe:

·      SFPD planted the information on the SF Police Commission’s website,

·      Barba just happened to perfectly time his viewing of Kosta’s temporarily unredacted name on the website of the government entity Carter-Oberstone serves on, and

·      Barba, a professional investigative journalist, neglected to document his uncovering of Kosta’s name with a screenshot.

Wow, talk about a fantastical story!

Public records request to the Police Commission refutes Carter-Oberstone’s alilbi

Carter-Oberstone and The Standard’s story was just too rich.  Think about it: If the confidential records on the leaked SFPD officer were temporarily exposed on the Police Commission website, then there would have to be a trail of someone removing the unredacted version and replacing it with a redacted version. 

On October 5, 2023, I issued a public records request to the police commission asking what the dates were when:

·      The original unredacted report was posted.

·      The unredacted report was removed.

·      The redacted report was reposted.

On October 10, 2023, the Police Commission responded to my public records request and said they have no documentation that a report was mistakenly posted and then corrected on their website. 

OMG!  No unredacted version of a posting of the SFPD officer’s name?  Could Carter-Oberstone and anonymous staff writers for The Standard be lying? 

This is all consistent with Carter-Oberstone’s information carousel.  He delivers his flawed and subjective personal data analysis to The Standard or Chronicle, those media outlets never verify the accuracy of his analysis before publishing confirmatory articles, and then Carter-Oberstone cites the unchecked Standard and Chronicle articles as validation of his work.  At the October 4^th Police Commission meeting he did the same thing; Carter-Oberstone cited anonymous staff at The Standard as confirmation that  he did not leak the information. 

Logically, if The Standard is supporting Carter-Oberstone’s “unredacted” claim, that means they are also in conflict with the police commission’s evidence that no unredacted version exposing Kosta’s name was ever posted.  Either the Police Commission is lying or Carter-Oberstone and The Standard are lying.

Since apparently Carter-Oberstone is the only person in the world that witnessed this temporary exposure of Kosta’s name, perhaps he can document what subsequent affirmative steps he took to protect Kosta’s identity after he first saw the police commission’s negligent exposure….emails or text exchanges.  ^[i]

The facts support: Max Carter-Oberstone is dishonest, he is the leaker, and he does not meet the requirements to be a commissioner

·      As a police commissioner, Carter-Oberstone has access to a copy of the unredacted version of the report that the Kosta’s name was reported.

·      Documentable records evidence the Police Commission has no trail of an “accidental” unredacted version of the Kosta’s name.

·      The anonymous writers at The Standard claim the Kosta’s name was exposed, but as professionals, they never captured a screenshot to document their fortuitous finding.

·      I am 100% sure the Mayor of San Francisco will say that Carter-Oberstone has a history of lying.

·      It is  consistent with how the unemployed Carter-Oberstone misrepresents to the public that he is still employed at Orrick Law despite that relationship ending over four months ago.  What happened at Orrick?

·      Carter-Oberstone has failed to refute the overwhelming evidence that he never achieved the criminal court experience that is a requirement for him to sit on the SF Police Commission.

Max Carter-Oberstone is an embarrassment to the credibility of the Police Commission

Obviously, The Standard, must protect Carter-Oberstone as their source.   Yet, San Francisco Police Commission records now prove that Carter-Oberstone’s story about an unredacted/redacted document is a fabrication.  Forensically, the only way The Standard obtained their access to confidential information is through Carter-Oberstone’s leaking.

Why is Carter-Oberstone not asking for an investigation to clear either himself or the the Police Commission’s of criminal involvement?   What is he afraid of?

Carter-Oberstone should be investigated, and then arrested for his criminal acts.

---

^[i] Normally, a public records request (prr) to the Police Commission would reveal Carter-Oberstone’s electronic communications. However, prior prr’s on his electronic communications failed because he conducts government business on his personal devices and email platform.  Just another example of rules he believes only apply to other people.