“Injustice fights with two weapons, force and fraud..  A common form of injustice is chicanery, that is, an over-subtle, in fact a fraudulent construction of the law.”    Cicero – On Moral Duties

“The law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”     Thomas Jefferson

The Vehicle Habitation Ordinance last night was first brought to City Council almost two years ago but shelved after dozens of residents stated that an ordinance was not necessary and was a cruel and merit-less tactic to push the homeless out of Palo Alto into neighboring communities.

COMMUNITY MEETING:

In response the City created a “Working Group” to discuss alternatives to an ordinance.  Contrary to Curtis Williams’ assertion last night that only one alternative was presented during the Working Group’s meetings, there were several other options placed on the table that he, the City Attorney and Police Chief have refused to consider or bring to City Council’s attention.

Interestingly most of the discussion during the P&S meeting  revolved around the problems associated with the homeless in general and not about the use of vehicles by the homeless, “Vehicle Dwellers.”

At one point city staff person Minka Van der Zwaag was referring to problems in public showers and bathrooms.  What does a shower inside a building have to do with a person placing his belongings in his vehicle and sleeping there at night?

It became apparent that city staff was mixing apples with oranges to fictionalize a mountain of a problem when there is less than a mole-hill.

Police chief Dennis Burns presented some statistics regarding calls for service specifically related to Vehicle Dwellers isolated to one location in town, Cubberley Center, where as many as 30 homeless sleep at night in addition to 5 to 10 vehicle dwellers.

Chief Burns stated that there were 10 calls for service in 2010, 18 calls for service in 2011, 39 calls for service in 2012 and 9 calls for service for the first four months of 2013.

Chief Burns could not present the number of calls for service at Lytton Plaza or outside the local bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants for those same years which is assumed to be well over 300.  The problems at some of these locations are so pervasive that police officers actually station themselves there for hours on end.  I wonder how much the city spends each year on its officers to hang out in front of “The Patio” sports bar and Lytton Plaza?

Is there any reason why the city cannot proactively patrol Cubberley Center in order to head off any problems with the homeless and or Vehicle Dwellers?

Chief Burns neglected to identify the nature of the calls at Cubberley and how many different people they are attributed to or the outcome of those calls.  For instance, was a call for service over a Vehicle Dweller urinating in public or just being there in his/her vehicle?  Was it a legitimate complaint or one fabricated out of a paranoid prejudice against Vehicle Dwellers?

Minka Van der Zwaag presented a case in how the current laws work when enforced by describing how one vehicle dweller was storing belongings in the public parking lot which resulted in that person removing the debris after complaints were made.

Councilman Klein justified his support for an ordinance by relying on the Chief’s unsubstantiated statistics of an increase in Vehicle Dwellers.  What does that have to do with behavior?  In justifying the ordinance based upon the number of Vehicle Dwellers living in Palo Alto Klein empirically reveals that the ordinance is not about disrespectful or unlawful behavior but based upon the economic color of Vehicle Dwellers’ skin.

Perhaps it is Klein who needs medication and not the homeless.   Heart drug, propranolol, may curb subconscious racism:

Council member Kniss asserted over and over that this ordinance does not criminalize the homeless or vehicle dwellers, but is just a tool for the PAPD to deal with those few Vehicle Dwellers who are causing problems and that the ordinance would only be used on a complaint basis.

The problem with this assertion is that Kniss, City Attorney Molly Stump, City Manager James Keene and Police Chief Dennis Burns have not identified what a legitimate complaint is.

Based upon the current ordinance:  John Doe who lives on the 100 block of Addison calls the police to report a person sleeping in his vehicle; the police show up and arrest the person because the person is homeless and has no permanent address and has been contacted by the police before for refusing to leave Palo Alto or avail himself of homeless services despite the fact that this person drives a taxi-cab full time.

This Vehicle Dweller is not violating any nuisance laws, his only offense is his existence in Palo Alto in a vehicle.

Council Member Liz Kniss, Police Chief Dennis Burns, City Attorney Molly Stump and City Manager James Keene state that the ordinance is necessary to punish Vehicle Dwellers for violating current laws such as urinating in public, littering, disturbing the peace, etc… because when Vehicle Dwellers violate current laws the police are never around to catch them in the act.

If that is the true motivation behind the ordinance, then Larry Klein, Liz Kniss, Dennis Burns, Molly Stump and James Keene need to explain to the citizens of Palo Alto how they intend to go after homeless people who do not have vehicles who never get caught urinating and littering etc… in public because the police are never around to catch them?

There are a 70 homeless people living in Palo Alto who do not have vehicles whom this ordinance will not affect who will still be urinating and littering when the police are not around to catch them.

Perhaps Kniss and Klein will make it illegal for homeless people to walk around with a sleeping bag and a back-pack full of clothes or even ride a bicycle.

Based upon the City’s rational for criminalizing the use of vehicles by the homeless, one has to conclude that the City will pass an ordinance outlawing the use of bicycles and eliminate the bars from downtown.

Who would be more likely to pass a Vehicle Habitation Ordinance; Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. or would Jefferson Davis, Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan be more likely?

“Consider the rights of others before your own feelings, and the feelings of others before your own rights.”  John Wooden

”We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others.”         Will Rogers

Klein, Kniss, Burns and the others will no doubt take umbrage to the above characterization, however instead of contemplating how their own actions are perceived by those whom they will be affecting they hide in denial refusing to allow their position to be challenged from true debate where legitimacy or illegitimacy of any position is revealed.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” Ayn Rand 

The purpose of the Press is to expose corruption in government.  This invasive intrusion into the workings of the Press by the government will have a chilling effect on the ability of the Press and its sources to reveal the truth of what the government wants to hide from the citizens, Ala’ Benghazi.

What they are saying:

Patrick Henry:   “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

John F. Kennedy:  “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”   

AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt:  “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”     

“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news.”  Pruitt has demanded that the department return all records collected and destroy all copies.

Ben Wizner, ACLU:  “Obtaining a broadrange of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power.”   ”Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.):  “Any abridgement of the First Amendment right to the freedom of the press is very concerning.”

Senator Patrick Leahy:  “I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government’s explanation.”

Congressman Darrell Issa:  “They’re looking at what is considered to be confidential.”

Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington Office:  “The media’s purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance,” “The Attorney General must explain the Justice Department’s actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”

     James Madison:  “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”  

     Thomas Jefferson:  “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”  

Sources:

Pruitt’s Letter to AG Eric Holder 

AP blasts feds for records

Justice Dept. obtains wide AP phone records in probe

Justice Department secretly seized AP reporters’ phone records

Police said a Palo Alto woman call them on May 1^st after she and the man on the scooter, later identified as Patrick Little, 49, of Mountain View, got into a road rage.

Police said that the woman was driving her sedan south on the 800 block of Alma Street at 6 p.m. when she and Little, who was behind her, change lanes at the same time, cutting off Little.

When the two vehicles stopped at the intersection with Homer Street, the woman said Little began arguing with her and accusing her of cutting him off.

The woman said she became scared and told Little she was going to call police and he in turn threatened to hurt her, according to police.

Once the light turned green, Little continued yelling threats at her and drove in front of her, pumping his brakes to make it harder for the woman to drive, police said.

The woman took photos of Little’s license plate and he drove away. Police arrested Little on suspicion of threatening the woman with serious bodily injury or death, a felony. Police said Little was booked into Santa Clara County Jail on May 2^nd.

See related Modern Vespa blog comments:

The Daily Post

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

On May 7 th,2013 at approximately 2pm, the Menlo Park Police Department’s Narcotic Enforcement Team along with East Palo Alto’s Special Investigations Bureau, and the San Francisco Office of the FBI served a search warrant in the 2300 block of Menlato Avenue in East Palo Alto.

The search warrant was the result of a several week-long investigation into John Wayne Price, 38 year old male out of Menlo Park. The investigation revealed Price was selling cocaine base out of a residence in the 2300 block of Menalto Avenue in East Palo Alto.

At the conclusion of the search warrant, Price was arrested after a large quantity of cocaine base and a loaded stolen firearm was located inside of the residence.

Price was booked into San Mateo County Jail for possession for sales of cocaine base and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Price has since posted $100,000 bail and has been released from county jail. Also arrested in the residence was Yoland a Wright, 49 year old female out of East Palo Alto. Wright was found to have a no-bail probation warrant for her arrest. Write was booked into San Mateo County jail.

For more information on this release contact:
Acting Commander Eric Cowans at
escowans@menlopark.org
or (650) 330-6357

Among other things, the report recommended that the city install cameras in high-crime areas as well as a “ShotSpotter” system like the one used by the city of East Palo Alto. Such systems are used to pinpoint where gunshots come from and alert police.

The proposal to acquire multiple kinds of new law-enforcement cameras and technology came in a report written by the consulting company Belcher, Ehle, Medina and Associates. The report, presented at last night’s City Council meeting, analyzed the police departments performance and areas for improvement.

License plate readers

The report presented by consultant Steve Bletcher, also recommended an automatic license plate recognition system, which would photograph and document the license plates of cars going in and out of the city.

The report also advocated buying multiple video cameras for police cars. According to Jonsen, body cameras that will be worn by officers have already been ordered. If further recommended installing cameras and audio recorders in the lobby and jail area of the police station.

Alternatives to guns

Bletcher said his group also concluded that Menlo Park should consider arming its officers with Tasers, which he called a useful alternative to guns.

The 2012-2013 budget for the police department is $14.7 million. There are 47 sworn officers and 22.75 civilian employees.

Daily Post Staff Writer: Breena Kerr

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

Very little progress it seems has taken place since 2008 with the resignation of former Palo Alto police chief Lynne Johnson concerning her controversial orders to stop all African Americans wearing a “Doo-rag” during a series of robberies having taken place in Palo Alto involving an African American.

We believe an alleged racial profiling vehicle stop recently occurred in Palo Alto on University Ave and requested to review the actual Mobile Audio Video recording (MAV) record of the stop to confirm our uncertainties under a California Public Records Act as a third party complaint. That request was denied in complete defiance of the law.

CPRA – Section 6255. “The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”

Listen closely to Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns commitment to the community on open government and transparency concerning the ability to review the actual vehicle stop recording (MAV) to eliminate even the slightest perception of unconstitutional motivated racial profiling by the Palo Alto Police Department.

What should we do if we encounter or witness police engaged in wrongful racial profiling? It’s all about “citizen participation”. “It’s incumbent upon you, it is imperative; it is your responsibility to let the authorities know”. “Take responsibility”! Say’s Harold Boyd former member; Police Chief’s Community Advisory Group. And we have…….

However, for those who live just a stone’s throw away, in East Palo Alto, it’s more like an International Border crossing with unspoken conditions of travel appearing to be specify designed for the vast majority of African Americans and Latino Americans who live in East Palo Alto.

Fear of being pulled over

The welcoming sign, for many represents’ a sign of fear as one East Palo Alto business owner, Elwyn Rainer of Rainers Service Station put it; “The majority of Hispanics and African Americans are afraid to travel over to Palo Alto in fear of being pulled over and searched for no reasons”.

“Research has verified that people of color are more often stopped than whites” as reported in one study by the Office of Justice Programs. In fact, Mr. Rainer describes himself as the “Poster Child” of what he perceives as racially motivated vehicle stops by the Menlo Park and Palo Alto police departments based solely upon skin his color.

In one of Mr. Rainer’s many vehicle stops the officer did state the reason why he was pulled over. In one stop, it was because as he put it, “your bumper went over the white pedestrian crossing line”.

“It doesn’t matter what I’m being pulled over for I’m always asked; “Are you on probation, recently released from jail all asked all in one breathe” as he put it.

Questioning intensifies

That’s when the line of questioning intensifies; “Do you mind if we search your vehicle”? He said, “It makes you afraid so I always consent out of fear”. Mr. Rainer admittedly said that he does have a “colorful past” and did not disclose what the past was. None the less he no longer travels over to Palo Alto.

Many of the perceived unspoken travel requirements necessary before entering Palo Alto by East Palo Alto citizens include, functioning taillights, current registration, license, both plates, insurance, no strong odors and having the right tattoos of all things.

Recent border crossing from East Palo Alto

That was the experience of one recent border crossing detainment by the Palo Alto police department involving two East Palo Alto Latino citizens while traveling on University Ave.

She relates, “They had stopped us because the car didn’t have the front license plate; he first explained why he had pulled us over but then right after he asked my boyfriend if he has ever been in trouble before.

He asked how old were we and took down my information, within seconds he asked my boyfriend to step out the car and questioned him about his tattoos on both arms (his last name).

After minutes of having him by the police car, the cop asked me to get out the car and asked me to empty out my pocket’s and also he searched my boyfriend and the car.

He had said it smelled like the illegal substance Marijuana, when he had searched the car he didn’t find anything. After he was done he kept questioning both of us about where did we live and what we’re we doing in Palo Alto”.

Just being stopped by the police under any circumstance can be nerve racking in itself. However, we believe the nature or line questions asked in these two cases in our opinion appears to be discriminatory and biased in nature with the intent of targeting minorities and or the disenfranchised.

Attempted explanation

Not so! And in explaining the vehicle stop which occurred recently on University Ave, Palo Alto police Lieutenant Zachary Perron states; “every vehicle stop is different. There are many reasons why an officer might request an occupant to get out of a vehicle during a detention; in fact, case law allows officers to do it on any stop.

It would be irresponsible for me to speculate about why any officer would ask occupants to step out of a vehicle on any particular stop, since each stop is different.”

However, “building better community relations is still one of the primary concerns of law enforcement throughout the country. That is why every action by a law enforcement officer has a bearing on the relationship of the agency with the community. Since most citizens come into contact with law enforcement officers at traffic stops, this becomes a critical element for law enforcement agencies in their overall public relations effort.

Traffic enforcement offers agencies a way to build bridges to the community, one traffic stop at a time”. As sited by the International Association of Chiefs of Police

Disturbing questions remain

Were disappointed but not surprised that Lieutenant Zachary Perron did not address the all important questions of; “have you ever been arrested or are you on probation” as the first questions asked in the two East Palo Alto vehicle stop examples.

We beleive the average citizen no matter what their ethnicity, would find these questions to be derogatory, inflammatory, offensive and discriminatory and in no way designed to build trust especially within minority communities.

We left a voice mail message with East Palo Alto Police Information Officer Veronica Barries seeking her comments. She has yet to return our call. Lastly, we strongly feel as suggested by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that “The first words spoken by the officer may very well determine the tone of the encounter and even the eventual outcome” in building better community relationships especially among minorities.

Also see: Palo Alto Police Department’s Response to Concerns Regarding Bias-Based Policing ]]> http://paloaltofreepress.com/welcome-to-palo-alto-now-empty-out-your-pockets/feed/ 0 http://paloaltofreepress.com/crime-lab-cover-up/ http://paloaltofreepress.com/crime-lab-cover-up/#comments Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:02:47 +0000 Tony Ciampi http://paloaltofreepress.com/?p=15798 Ian Fitch, Director Santa Clara County Crime Lab

Mr. Fitch,

Your crime lab verified that audio/video footage has been removed from a Taser video could you please explain how physically removing evidence from a video is not considered tampering with, editing and falsifying the evidence?  CLICK HERE:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html

You are quoted as stating,  “I do believe…. the desire in society to develop investigative leads to potentially result in the prosecution of very serious crimes.”

Does that include Police Officers who violate the law and Constitution?

On March 23, 2011 I sent you a complaint regarding the production of erroneous crime lab reports by your staff in order to conceal the editing and falsifying of audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data by members of the Palo Alto Police Department.  It has been over two years and you have not responded to my inquiry despite the plethora of evidence I have sent you.

For Example Being Two Different Places At Once:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/four.html 

Therefore I have some questions for you and the staff involved, Criminalists: Mario Soto, Christopher Corpora and John Bourke.  Most of what you will see I have already sent you, so you should be familiar with the evidence provided.

Should you refuse to address my allegations by either refuting them or verifying them I will have to conclude that you are not capable of holding your staff accountable contradicting spokesman Nick Muyo.

“It’s in our best interest to make sure the foren­sic work is fair and con­sis­tent.  It’s the DA’s rep­u­ta­tion and the rep­u­ta­tion of the office,” spokesman Nick Muyo said.    “For peo­ple who are saying we can’t inves­ti­gate our­selves, our response is we stand the most to lose so it would behoove us to do a complete and thorough investigation.”

Thus, issuing a statement that you disagree with my findings as DA Jeff Rosen has is not sufficient Mr. Fitch.

DA Jeff Rosen is quoted as stating, “Our criminalists are outstanding forensic scientists who use their skills, experience, and knowledge to solve crimes, enhance transparency and promote justice for the community we serve.”

It is a verifiable fact that the videos and taser gun activation data of the March 15, 2008 incident has been tampered with, the question you need to pose to your staff is why they did not obtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data when it was within their power to do so back in 2008 when your lab was first informed?

The MAV videos were recorded to Tamper proof hard drives in which you could have obtained the original unadulterated videos.   Eventually Chief Burns would destroy those hard drives in violation of his department’s policy.

Hard Drives, Click Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/two.html

Additionally, why do you and your staff presently refuse to obtain the original recordings and issue truthful analysis of the evidence verifying that the videos and taser guns have been tampered with rendering falsified recordings and data?

Perhaps your office did obtain the original MAV recordings and did not like what you saw and there for suppressed those unadulterated videos to protect the corrupt cops.

Sheriff Laurie Smith’s allegation that there is an inherent conflict of interest in your crime lab being controlled by the DA would be validated should DA Jeff Rosen refuse to allow you to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence and allegations put forth in this inquiry.

Please keep in mind that upon being informed of the falsified videos on August 18, 2008 the DA’s office allowed the PAPD to hold onto the evidence for at least three weeks and possibly longer.  Additionally, it is current Police Chief Dennis Burns who requested the analysis of the falsified evidence, yet he himself was and is involved in the tampering of evidence.  

Several felonies were committed by numerous officers in the Palo Alto Police Department corroborated with credible evidence and instead of obtaining a warrant from a judge to obtain the evidence on August 18/19, 2008, the DA allowed the suspects to hold onto the evidence for a minimum of three weeks, probably longer, enabling the suspects to destroy the evidence and determine which evidence to turn over to the DA and your crime lab.

Do you think that’s how it would work if someone provided you with a photograph of numerous bags of cash and white powder being removed from a vehicle and placed into a private garage?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

We shouldn’t be surprised, DDA Deborah Medved and others in the DA’s office, Philip Charlebois, suppressed evidence throughout my criminal case in violation of the law and Constitution, but that is for the next article and the book.  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-2.html                                                                                See Section I of Exhibit ONE:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-1.html

So Mr. Fitch, lets start with Criminalist Christopher Corpora.

ONE:     Mr. Corpora analyzed the Taser Videos and MAV videos to determine if they had been tampered with.  Mr. Corpora completed his analysis on or about October 8, 2009.

Since Ofc. Temores’ MAV video did not have any audio, Mr. Corpora mated Temores’ MAV video to Burger’s MAV audio, that’s called editing and falsifying the evidence if you didn’t’ know.

Mr. Corpora, you claim that no editing occurred yet you do not document in your report that the dialog of “your not making it easy” (Statement ‘A’) has been removed from Burger’s MAV recording and the dialog of, “or I’m going to taser you” has been removed from Burger’s Taser recording.

Audio Evidence Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/one.html

TWO:     It is humanly impossible for the same person to make two separate statements at exactly the same time.  Therefore the only explanation as to how the two statements made by Officer Burger at exactly the same time in that the recordings is that the recordings have been tampered with.  The above evidence proves that “time” and footage is missing from Burger’s MAV recording and since Burger’s MAV recording is in sync with Temores’ MAV recording the above evidence proves that Temores’ MAV video is missing footage as well.

Mr. Corpora, Officer Temores testified that the battery to his microphone ran out of power which is why there is no audio on his MAV recording, yet you documented that Temores’ MAV system picked up a low-volume audio recording.  Can you explain how Temores’ MAV picked up audio when his microphone had no power to pick up any audio?  To the average person there shouldn’t be anything heard on the recording because there was NO MICROPHONE to record  any audio.

Battery Evidence Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/three.html

Though Temores and the PAPD have asserted that his microphone ran out of power, that was highly unlikely given that the battery was fully powered when Temores went on duty.

Since there is audio, how come you did not, “pull it out” as it appears that you are capable of?

There is other evidence of audio editing in the recordings which you can find, that is if you want to find it.

THREE:     Mr. Corpora you concluded that there are no scenes recorded on the Taser videos that have not been recorded on Temores’ MAV video.

Here are THREE SCENES that have been recorded onto the taser videos yet were not recorded onto Temores’ MAV video verifying that video footage has been removed from Temores’ MAV video.

Missing Video:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/five.html

FOUR:    Mr. Corpora you concluded that the MAV videos have not been tampered with.  You even contacted Kustom Signals, the manufacturer of the MAV systems to help with the analysis in which you discuss analyzing the metadata.

Mr. Corpora you are paid a lot of money to conduct professional, thorough and truthful analyses of evidence, how come you chose not to analyze the watermark that is created for the purpose of diagnosing whether a Kustom Signals’ MAV video has been tampered with or not?

Watermark:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/six.html

FIVE:     Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger Testified under Penalty of Perjury that he drew his taser gun TWO separate times from his holster and that his taser gun was in his holster while he pulled me from the vehicle and up against the fence.  (Just so you know that’s not what happened, what truly happened has been removed from the video).

The Audio/Video footage from Burger’s own taser video contradicts his statement exposing him as committing perjury in an attempt to explain why there is missing video footage from his taser video.

Burger’s Perjury:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/seven.html

The question you need to ask is, why would Ofc. Burger commit perjury unnecessarily?

SIX:     Mr. Corpora you document in your report that there are three breaks in time in both taser videos, yet I only see two breaks in time on the taser videos.  Could you point out the third break in time in the taser videos?

Additionally Mr. Corpora, you verified that 4 seconds of audio/video footage is missing from Temores’ Taser video.

How can you conclude that no editing has occurred with this empiricle evidence to the contrary has been produced by you?

 Missing Taser Video:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html

Mr. Corpora given the above empirical evidence, how is possible for you to come to a conclusion that the recordings have not been tampered with?

SEVEN:    Mr. Bourke, you initially analyzed the taser cameras, taser gun and taser videos from the original taser hard drive.  The falsified taser gun activation report given to the DA states that Temores discharged electricity from his taser gun one time for five seconds, yet Officer Temores testified under penalty of perjury that he discharged electricity two separate times.

Temores Perjury:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/nine.html

Why would Ofc. Temores commit perjury unnecessarily?

EIGHT:     Mr. Bourke, in your analysis you do not document downloading the taser gun activation data and comparing it to the taser videos.  You downloaded the taser videos directly from the taser cameras with the same cable that is capable of downloading the taser gun activation data and you documented the duration of the videos but you did not document number to times and duration of taser gun discharges, why?

That would have been a very simple, inexpensive and verifiable means to prove or disprove that the taser videos had been tampered with.

Maybe you did download the Taser gun activation data and you didn’t like what saw.

Mr. Bourke you could have figured out that the taser gun data ports had been tampered with by comparing the illuminated taser wire with the taser gun activation data.

Taser Gun Discharge:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/ten.html

NINE:     You did note that some of the taser video frames were improperly indexed, (not in chronological order), and tried to access the original download area on the original computer but were prevented from doing so.  Instead of gaining access to that area of the computer you chose to cease your investigation.

Bourke Ceases Investigation:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eleven.html  

Why didn’t you want to find out what was on the original taser hard drive?  Why didn’t you want to recover the original unadulterated taser videos?

In the process of my civil suit I subsequently proved that both taser guns’ data ports have been tampered with and that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the courts.  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-6.html

TEN:     Officer Burger is heard on his own MAV recording stating that he himself felt electricity from his own taser wires, yet Burger does not come into contact with his taser wires during the two second discharge documented on his activation report.  But more, importantly, Andrew Hinz, Taser International’s Director of Technical Services, verified that no electricity was discharged into Ofc. Burger’s taser wires after analyzing those taser wires.

Why would Ofc. Burger without any prompting state that he felt electricity from his taser guns’ taser wires minutes after he fired his taser gun when according the Manufacturer no electricity traveled through the wires?

If no electricity was discharged through Officer Burger’s taser wires, why would officer Burger testify under penalty of perjury to the contrary unnecessarily?

Taser Wire Contradiction:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/twelve.html

The reason why Mr. Hinz documents that no electricity was discharged into Burger’s taser wires is because he did not analyze Burger’s taser wires, he was probably given Temores’ taser wires, the taser wires which Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns has asserted were destroyed in violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy.

Why was Temores’ taser wires, taser probes and taser cartridge destroyed?  They were destroyed because Temores fired two probes from his taser gun during the incident and the audio/video footage of that Taser gun firing has been removed from the videos.           See Here:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html

The Palo Alto Police removed Temores’ taser probes, taser wires and taser cartridge from the crime scene and then took photos of the crime scene in order to falsely portray that crime scene with the intent of using that fabricated crime scene to incriminate me with a felony.  This act by the PAPD is a violation of P.C. 141(b).

Now Mr. Hinz is the same person who has asserted under penalty of perjury that Taser Camera V07-065373 was first sent to the Palo Alto Police on November 26, 2008, yet the 2008 Taser Download Report documents TASER CAM V07-065373 being downloaded on January 9, 2008, ELEVEN months earlier.  And Police Chief Dennis Burns stated that TASER CAM V07-065373 is the TASER CAM he took into possession from Officer Burger on August 29, 2008 and that Officer Burger used this camera on March 15, 2008.

See Evidence Here:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html

and here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/2008_download_report_taser_serial_numbers.pdf

So the question is, how did the Palo Alto Police download Taser camera V07-065373 on January 9, 2008 when they did not even possess it at that time?

As incredible as that sounds, Andrew Hinz initially documented that taser cameras V06-015020 and V06-015020 recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and that these two taser cameras were sent to Taser International for repair and subsequently destroyed.

See Evidence Here:   http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html

Mr. Fitch, even though I have provided you significantly more evidence proving my allegations of tampering than the above, the above is proof enough.

Now that is a lot to digest, however you have had a couple of years to address my allegations but have refused to do so.  I had provided evidence of the MAV tampering as early as September 10, 2008.

I know that you and your staff’s perspective of me has been manipulated by the falsified video.  All I can say is that your perspective would change if you could see and hear the unadulterated videos.

Mr. Fitch you know that the videos have been edited, given the video footage that remains, why would the PAPD remove video footage unnecessarily?  Obviously, Officers Burger, Temores and Wagner did something that they did not want you or anyone else to see and it surely was not something something trivial nature, it must have been something extremely outrageous to motivate them to commit felonies by falsifying the evidence.

Why don’t you obtain that missing video footage and taser gun activation data and then make your decision and evaluation based upon all of the true facts instead basing your view on a fabricated video that is missing 24 to 30 seconds of video footage?

As improbable as that sounds, cogitate on that for a while and think about how Barron Pikes was electrocuted to death from a taser gun by a police officer who refused to stop shocking him even though he was not resisting.

http://chiefburns.weebly.com/taser-death.html

Mr. Fitch, should you ever obtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data you will discover that Officer Burger shocked me for a minimum of 20 seconds, probable closer to 25 seconds.

There are lot of people in the justice system who believe that if a police officer is beating a citizen to death even though that citizen is not resisting, that citizen cannot defend themselves and therefore must allow the police officer to kill them.

Are you one of those people Mr. Fitch?

Example “A”
Suppose a police officer verbally antagonizes and falsely arrests a gang-member who is hanging out on the corner for no apparent reason.  And then suppose that officer starts beating on that gang member and steals that gang member’s money and other possessions but lets that gang member go free after he, the cop, takes the gang members possessions.  Should this cop be arrested and prosecuted for false arrest, robbery and use of excessive force?  Is this a cop whom you would consider a good person and should be a police officer?

Example “B”
Now suppose another police officer does all of the above with the exception of robbery to a person who is not a gang member, to a person who does not have a criminal record, but to a person who is simply just poor and then destroys and falsifies evidence, (falsifies videos), in order to wrongfully incriminate the poor person if a crime to place that poor person in prison simply because that poor person is poor.

Of the two scenarios above, which one is the more serious crime, the more egregious offense and is the greater violation of our society’s morays?  Should the cop in example “B” be thoroughly investigated and brought to justice for his acts just as the cop in example ‘”A,” or should you just let him go because most of the time he’s a likable guy?

Stutchman’s Forensic Report:  Stutchman’s Report https___ecf.cand.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=7384829-0–29335

John Bourke’s Report:  213 Bourke M081017

Christopher Corpora’s Report:  211 Corpora Analysis

Mario Soto’s Report:  212 Soto Analysis

Mr. Soto you verified that the hash values were different indicating that the taser videos had been tampered with according to MIT:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/thirteen.html    and

http://chiefburns.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/mit_hash_value_article.pdf

Los Altos City Council Steak Dinner

Los Altos, for instance, spends $130 to $150 before every meeting feeding its five council members. Receipts reviewed by the Post show some council members got steaks.

Meals are typically consumed during a closed-door session, which keeps this practice out of the public eye.

Palo Alto has been feeding its council members for years, but, stopped the practice about a year right after the dot-com bust.  The temporary suspension of council meals was a belt-tightening measure.

A year later, the food was back. Atherton and Menlo Park also provided free meals, so they typically ordered sandwiches or pizza, not steaks.

In Los Altos, however, council members are e-mailed menus before a meeting to pick what they want to eat.

When the Post first printed a story about these meals on March 29, the defense offered by the cities was that council members were coming to the meeting straight from their daytime jobs, and didn’t have time for dinner at home.

Palo Alto City Council Member Larry Klein

Palo Alto Councilman Larry Klein said he didn’t want council-members rushing through meetings because they’re hungry.

Why can’t council members pack a brown bag dinner, and bring it with them? Why should taxpayers pay for these meals?

This sets a bad example for city employees who have the ability to charge meals to the taxpayers in certain instances.

They’ll see it and think, “Why can’t I do that? The city’s got plenty of money.”

And it undermines the argument that our cities have cut their budgets to the bone when council members feast on T-bone steaks.

The Daily Post Opinion – Dave Price Editor:

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

This year’s theme, “What Will You Discover!” celebrates the finding of that special activity or talent that is a child’s “spark” that unleashes their energy and joy.

While pre-registration for youth groups has passed, individual kids who show up by 9:30a.m. the morning of the parade and march in the Kids on Parade category.

The morning will be filled with spirited entertainment from local high school and junior high school marching bands, decorated hand-pulled floats, and thousands of children marching, skating, cycling, tumbling, and strolling through downtown Palo Alto.

The Palo Alto Weekly judges the float contest, giving out prizes in several categories in this fun-filled friendly competition. Following the parade, join the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Palo Alto Kiwanis Club for the May Fete Fair, the annual celebratory fair with food, music and games at Heritage Park immediately following the Parade until 1pm.

For more information please call 650-463-4921 or visit us online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/recreation.

This exciting event is presented by the City of Palo Alto Recreation Division and is sponsored by the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Hobee’s of California, University Art, Stanford Park Nannies, Insurance by Allied Arts, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Palo Alto Sport Shop & Toy World.