Not only was Kamala’s timing in charging Ed Jew interesting, but it looks like her investigators knew exactly where to go.

Sources close to the case said Tuesday that evidence collected included interviews with Jew’s neighbors — both on 28th Avenue and in Burlingame, where his family lives — as well as voter registration, Department of Motor Vehicle, utility and other records that would show where Jew had actually resided.

The conclusion was that Jew had owned property on 32nd Avenue in District 4 when he first ran for supervisor unsuccessfully in 2002, but that he had sold it soon afterward. By the following year, he was allegedly creating a paper trail for his subsequent run — among other things, registering to vote at the 28th Avenue address owned by his parents.

Yep, Kamala knew where those breadcrumbs were a long time ago. Everyone did, because Jew left them for everyone to see.

Forget about Tapiocagate. Forget about rumors of arson, tax fraud, illegal evictions, and activity surrounding the pot club in one of his buildings. Forget even about questions surrounding his own residency is San Francisco. This alone proves that Supervisor Ed Jew is a liar.

Ed and Lisa are raising their 8 year old daughter in the Sunset District.

LIE! Ed’s wife and daughter live in Burlingame.

Jew claims to live in San Francisco, while his wife and young daughter, a spokeswoman for Jew said, reside at a one-story home in Burlingame. Jew’s neighbors in San Francisco reportedly assert that his home is vacant.

So, which is it Ed? Are you saying that the city you work, hold office and claim to live not good enough for your family? Is it good enough for mine? At the very least Ed, don’t make up stories about your kid.

(Hmmm…sounds fishy – promoted by SFBrianCL)

We all make mistakes. Even me. However, very few of us make mistakes this big.

First, a little background. Some state and local government employees (iclunding myself) are required, under California law, to disclose any real estate, stock or other financial interests that may present a potential conflict of interest. I’m sure many emplyees might forget a few shares of stock, or if a spouse’s parent company may do business in a given locale. But $6 million?

San Francisco Board of Supervisors candidate Jaynry Mak failed to disclose her ownership interest in real estate valued at more than $6 million and the income she received from it while working as a city legislative aide, public records show.

As an aide to Supervisor Fiona Ma, Mak was one of hundreds of city employees and elected officials required to annually report real estate and stock holdings, income and other financial information to comply with government conflict of interest laws.

Mak, a 29-year-old lawyer who quit her city job earlier this year to run for the Board of Supervisors seat being vacated by her former boss, said her failure to disclose the information was a mistake and an innocent oversight — one she corrected this summer as she began her campaign.

Sure, innocent like Paris Hilton is “innocent”. And this isn’t even the first time she had to explain herself.

Earlier this summer, Mak was forced to explain her involvement with a real estate partnership that paid $5 million for property near the future home of a proposed 49ers football stadium development.

The acquisition took place while Mak was still a legislative aide and before an announcement by the football team about its plans for a stadium and residential project at Candlestick Point. Though Mak was listed only as an agent for the real estate partnership, her involvement raised questions about whether members of the partnership had access to inside information from City Hall before buying the land.

Then last month, Mak’s campaign also faced questions about whether it reported the true source of several political donations from people in low-wage jobs — maids, handymen, garment workers and line cooks — who gave her $500, the maximum amount allowed by law.

Mak has said the donations simply reflect friends of hers and her family and others whom she has helped over the years digging deep to show their support and gratitude. Still, the city attorney has opened an investigation in the matter at the request of the Ethics Commission, which enforces local campaign finance laws, sources familiar with the investigation said…..

Public records show that in 2004 Mak became joint owner with her mother of a property on Noriega Street in the Inner Sunset District valued at $811,486. For two years, she did not declare her stake in the single-family home on annual economic interest disclosures as she was required as an aide to Ma.

In 2005, Mak, along with her husband or parents, spent nearly $5.7 million to buy four separate west-side San Francisco properties, records show. She didn’t declare those homes on disclosure forms for that year either.

Mak eventually reported them — and the fact that she collects at least $40,000 a year in rent from the properties — on disclosure she filed in August, as she left City Hall and began her campaign for supervisor.

The contributions may be a little shady, but it looks more like business as usual than anything else. However, to fail to report million in holdings is not an innocent slip-up, and tell me that she is either incredibly dumb, incredibly corrupt……or both.