Palo Alto Free Press

Is the Palo Alto Police Department training its officers to violate the Constitution?

Tony Ciampi — Sun, 20 May 2012 03:29:05 +0000

At approximately 4:20pm on Saturday May 19, 2012, on Palo Alto Ave, a Palo Alto Police Officer pulled over a citizen for allegedly driving while talking on his cell phone.

Upon witnessing the incident it became apparent that the officer who pulled the citizen over appeared to be a trainee for there was another person, a female, riding along in the passenger seat of his patrol car who seemed much more seasoned than the officer issuing the citation.

I interviewed the driver of the tan van and asked what he had been pulled over for, and he informed me that he had been pulled over for using his cell phone while driving. He stated that he was not using his cell phone and that his cell phone verified that he made his last call three hours prior to being pulled over.

I cannot say for certain that this is the case, however if it is true that the officer pulled him over for using a cell phone and giving him a ticket for doing so when the citizen was not using as cell phone then the officer unlawfully detained the citizen.

The citizen informed me that he was going to refuse to sign the ticket and requested that a supervisor come to the seen, to which one did. The citizen stated that the officers were going to arrest him if he did not sign the ticket which prompted the citizen to sign the ticket.

I informed the citizen to document that he was not on his cell phone in order to get his ticket dismissed and then to file a complaint and a claim with the City of Palo Alto for violating his Constitutional rights. He indicated to me that he would.

Now the dilemma for the City of Palo Alto and IPA Michael Gennaco.

This communication has informed you, the City of Palo Alto, of the possible offense committed by one of your employees. The question is, will the internal affairs and the City Attorney and IPA Gennaco initiate an investigation to determine whether or not the Palo Alto Police Officer issued a fraudulent ticket and committed an unlawful detention prior to the citizen getting his ticket dismissed and submitting a complaint and claim?

If the City of Palo Alto, the PAPD and Michael Gennaco does nothing to reveal the truth prior to this person having to go through the trouble of proving his innocence in court, then it will be 100% proof that the City of Palo Alto, the PAPD and Michael Gennaco support their police officers using lies to incriminate citizens should it be proven that the citizen was not on his cell phone while driving and that it was an unlawful detention and citation.

Will City Attorney Molly Stump, City Manager James Keene and IPA Michael Gennaco wait forcing the citizen to defend himself against a potentially false charge or will they be proactive and seek the truth before hand in order to uphold and protect the Constitution?

Currently the evidence suggests that the citizen was unlawfully detained and cited and threatened with arrest, the truth should be on the MAV videos.

Why I am Running for Congress this Year…

Carol Brouillet — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:12:32 +0000

Twenty years ago, after watching the Oliver Stone film JFK, I was inspired to begin doing some research at the local library and became deeply disturbed by what I found out about the government’s covert operations. I felt a deep sense of responsibility to share what I had learned, first as a citizen, but also because I considered myself to be a writer and had worked in public relations.

I knew the power of the written word, that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword in the modern wars of propaganda. I felt that if people knew the facts, the truth, that we would be able to radically change our policies. Having begun that journey two decades ago, I have persevered in my efforts to inform the American people about issues that are ignored by mainstream media, all the while trying to balance my political work with the needs of my family and raising children.

Last year I worked on numerous issues, such as challenging the oil industry, challenging the nuclear industry, challenging corporate power in general, and advocating for significant monetary reform. I hosted a weekly radio show, interviewing activists involved in such disparate issues as the Gulf oil disaster, Fukushima, fracking, the politics of water, labeling GMOs, the Afghan war and American empire, shutting down Guantanamo, exploding the 9/11 myth, and Occupy Wall Street.

I helped to organize rallies, marches, and events that challenged multinational corporations, exploitative industries,the endless pre-emptive wars, the government’s assault on human rights, and the unpunished crimes of major financial institutions.

I am running for Congress to champion people power over corporate power, to redirect our vast resources away from imperial wars towards meeting human needs, to redesign our monetary system so that it is fair, honest, democratic, and accountable and serves rather than enslaves people. I am running for Congress to stand up to the oil, nuclear, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries that threaten us more than they serve us and need to be reined in.

I am running for Congress because I love life, my family, my children, and I care deeply about the future. I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything I can to rectify the problems that I am aware of and to help move our culture in a positive direction.

Perhaps the biggest difference between most incumbents and an insurgent candidate like me is that I do believe that people, given all the facts, can collectively make wise decisions. The revolutions that are occurring in almost every technological field, especially in communications, are making a human renaissance possible.

We can trump the corporate forces that are based on greed and the narrow pursuit of profit regardless of human and environmental costs. We can expose the lies and propaganda that shroud the dominant institutions under a disintegrating veil of legitimacy.

We can change the rules of the monetary game; we can reclaim the power to create money from the private banks that have abused that privilege to concentrate wealth and power, buy our government and dictate policy. We can turn money into a public utility to serve the common good, fund education, healthcare, create good jobs, and repair infrastructure.

We can dismantle empire, recognize and respect human rights, and begin to restore a legitimate government that will serve the people, protect the biosphere upon which all life depends, and stop catering to corporate demands.

The corporate structure was invented to serve the needs of expanding empire. Initially the American Revolution curbed the tyrannical corporate structure, but over time laws were subverted and rewritten to allow corporations to trump every aspect of our lives. We must rein in corporate power.

If elected, I pledge to introduce an amendment to the Constitution which would abolish corporate personhood, declare that money is not free speech, and explicitly ban special interest money in elections. As long as murder, war, and theft by corrupt legislators is legalized, we do not have a democracy. We must demand accountability and transparency in all aspects of government.

We must respect and protect all peoples’ human rights. We must match process with purpose, and walk our talk. We can activate, empower, and open the eyes of our friends, our neighbors, our families. If we replicate this process on the scale of a Congressional district or the entire state, we can take our government back. I invite everyone to walk the precincts with me, and vote for me. Together, we can occupy Congress!

Only Happy Talkers Need Apply

Chad Brunswick — Mon, 14 May 2012 04:00:51 +0000

The unprotected voice of descent

The city of Palo Alto, California, has long held that critical comments directed toward individual city council members, the mayor or police officers by name are improper and have stated so.

Yet city attorney Molly Stump tasked with defending city employees, its mayor and city council from unwanted litigation has remained silent and has refused to debate the rationale and logic behind its long held position of not allowing citizens to criticize our government officials unfettered and without bias.

The Constitution of the United States forms the bedrock of all state and city municipality ordinances. These ordinances, if disputed, should be made the subject of debate and remedy. It is another guarantee afforded to all citizens, foreign and domestic when discriminated against.

We simply do not understand why city council, its mayor and its staff of attorneys are fearful of any debate.

The First Amendment was designed for the purpose of debate. Accordingly, in the following opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Brandies identifies fearful individuals unwilling to debate as “cowards.”

Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 374-777 (1927)

“Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the process of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion”.

Time and time again, members of the community who have come before city council to redress their grievances have been met with intimidation and stiff opposition and often rebuked when criticizing their elected politicians or the police.

My observations have been that if these same individuals were to come before city council with praises and clapping and singing, they are always embraced without distinction. Those who come before city council with critical comments and speech are always made to feel that it’s only the happy talkers or speech that need apply.

Never in the history of the city of Palo Alto has the First Amendment been placed on the agenda. Maybe the time has come for all “cowards” to come forward and put to bed the city council’s reasons, within the confines of our Constitution, why we as citizens cannot criticize our public officials without chilling our speech or bullied.

History and alleged documented on-going pattern of First Amendment abuses by the Palo Alto Police Department.

May 2012 Report–Constitutional Enforcement Agency of Palo Alto

Constitutional Enforcement Agency of Palo Alto — Sun, 06 May 2012 04:23:51 +0000

First Report By the CONSTITUTIONAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF PALO ALTO

Pursuant to Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor’s 2011 Final Report:

lll. Cases Pending from Prior Report

1. Complaint of Biased Enforcement and Improper Search #C2011-001

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=30893

IPAs Michael Gennaco and Robert Miller inform the community that PAPD policy restricts officers from making vehicle stops based upon race or ethnicity and that the stop must point to objective facts of a violation of law.

Gennaco and Miller reviewed all of the reports and the MAV recording of the incident.

Gennaco and Miller determined that the complainant was driving a 1976 Chevrolet Nova and that the vehicle was being driven by an African American, the complainant.

Gennaco and Miller verify that the police officer turned off the headlights to his vehicle to determine whether or not the complainant was in violation of a California Vehicle Code.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the stop was neither racially nor economically motivated.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the stop was lawful for the claimant was in violation of V.C 24601.–”Either the taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear license plate during darkness and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear.”

As a result of the detainment, the officers engaged in a search of the complainant and the car due to the complainant’s probation status.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the officer turned his headlights off in order to determine whether or not there were objective facts that the complainant was in violation of V.C 24601,

The question that Gennaco and Miller failed to ask is, “WHY DID THE OFFICER TURN HIS HEAD LIGHTS OFF IF THE OBJECTIVE FACTS OF A VIOLATION WERE ALREADLY PRESENT?”

Answer, there were no objective facts prior to the officer turning his headlights off for logic dictates that if there were then it would have been unnecessary for the officer to turn his headlights off.

The next question that Gennaco and Miller failed to ask is, “WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE OFFICER TO TURN HIS HEADLIGHTS OFF BEHIND A POOR MAN’S CAR DRIVEN BY AN AFRICAN AMERICAN?”

Does this particular officer turn his headlights off on a regular basis to see if citizens are in violation of V.C 24601? How many times over the last six months has this officer turned his headlights off to obtain objective evidence that a license plate light is out? Does this officer turn his headlights off when following late model BMWs and Mercedes driven by White Middle Aged Women?

Prior to determining whether or not there were objective facts that conveyed a violation of V.C 24601 the officer was forced to turn off his headlights which is a violation of Calif. V.C. 24400.(b) and or Calif. V.C 24409.

The officer violated a vehicle in order to determine whether or not there were objective facts to detain a citizen for not having an illuminated license plate jeopardizing the safety of the community in the process.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the officer verified that the search of complainant and his vehicle was lawful due to the complainant’s probation status. However, the initial search of the complainant would not been performed if not stopped for the vehicle violation and therefore the complainant’s probation status would not have been discovered.

Since the initial stop was initiated by a prejudicially motivated and unlawful act of turning off the headlights which resulted in discovering the probation status it is concluded that the search was unlawful and in violation of PAPD policy.

Additionally, the officer knowingly and intentionally violated a vehicle code for which he has not been cited or disciplined for.

The act of giving a citation to a citizen for violating a vehicle code while knowingly refusing to give a citation to a PAPD police officer for violating a vehicle code which occurred during the same incident is empirical, beyond reasonable doubt, evidence that the PAPD has acted prejudicially against the complainant and that Gennaco and Miller support this prejudiced act.

The CEA has concluded that Palo Alto IPAs Michael Gennaco’s and Robert Miller’s findings in this case in error.

Due to the lack of thoroughness performed by IPAs Michael Gennaco and Robert Miller it is found that their report is prejudicially motivated in order to shield the PAPD and City of Palo Alto from financial and legal liability while protecting the reputation of PAPD and City.

CA V.C. 24400.
“(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated
during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two
lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).”

CA V.C 24409. “Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated during darkness, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam,directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons
and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to
the following requirements and limitations:”

Constitutional Enforcement Agency of Palo Alto
May 2012 Report Prepared
Tony Ciampi

The Three Stooges Movie Review:

Mick Wells — Sat, 05 May 2012 01:58:44 +0000

What’s wrong and what’s good about the Stooges?

Anyone who remembers the Stooges will be happy that Moe hasn’t lost a step, kick or poke and the other Stooges can still take a punch or hammer bash with a blink and a ‘boink.’ You will laugh and need a stenographer to catch all the puns, quips and jokes. The movie blends perfectly with the Stooge ‘oeuvre.’ So what’s wrong?

Well, it’s subtle but the movie goes ‘Clinton / Edwards’ on us in the last act. You might sense yourself squirm just for a second with a plot twist we’d only expect from a President or Senator. I won’t spoil it for you but inquiring minds will get their faces rubbed in the lechery and betrayal of what Hollywood sees as ‘family life.’ Yeah strange things do happen in families but geez, this is supposed to be a Stooge movie not a depravity contest.

Anyway, Hollywood and Politics have become a fashionable blend. You can’t seem to get one without a smear of the other. So the writers felt obligated to get a cultural (political) cheap shot in at the the Church and Family. These are easy targets for brave writers who never seem to write anything funny about Islam.

At some parts you may catch yourself laughing a little too hard. Are we trying to elevate ourselves in a perverse way, by trashing under foot the honorable notions of culture, family and faith?

The Christian faith, like the Stooges, can take a good punch and still turn the other cheek. And for all its missteps the Christian faith still encourages family, tolerance, charity, generosity, honesty, goodness, community and peace. So if knocking ‘family and faith’ isn’t courageous, clever or profound, what is it? It’s perverse. And it’s also politically correct and all too common. Why?

Lots of reasons but here’s two big ones.

1. We want everyone to feel good, which is nice and Utopian but Utopian is not realistic.

2. Politicians want every group and vote counted, no matter how bizarre, weird or destructive, because politicians just want to win.

Alexis deTocqueville called this situation a ‘tyranny of minorities.’

In the Stooge’s case, knocking ‘family and faith’ is just another celebration of the ‘weird view,’ disguised as comedy. According to Joseph Campbell, mythologist and scholar, a solid culture celebrates the eternal truths with stories that support the culture and truth.

Judging by the Stooge story, ‘family and faith’ are not a respectable part of our culture. People will say I’m too conservative. But where’s their tolerance, where’s their love? We used to make funny movies without trashing and shaming ourselves. Now we’re essentially beating ourselves up all the time in the Simpsons, Family Guy, glorified soap operas like Desparate Housewives, and all the TV comedies with buffoon fathers.

Today we mistake self destruction for humility and tolerance. And that’s so bad, it’s funny.

Check out the Stooges. You’ll laugh.

Grand Jury Determines Not to Bring Charges Against White Plains Officers Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.

Tony Ciampi — Sat, 05 May 2012 00:45:11 +0000

On November 19, 2011 White Plains, NY police officer kill retired Marine Kenneth Chamberlain for defending his freedom guaranteed by the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXRkrWfJcMk

Westchester District Attorney Janet Difiore stated to the media and public that the Grand Jury Heard All of the Evidence, but is that true?

After reviewing the taser video it became apparent to this reporter that two seconds are missing from the taser video. The video jumps from 11:41:48 to 11:41:51 without recording the 49th and 50th seconds. Additionally there is no logical reason why the taser video would not have recorded the one to two minutes of the altercation between the tasering and the firing of a gun which killed Mr. Chamberlain for there is no reason why the taser camera should have been turned off during that time period. Did the White Plains Police remove taser video footage that captured them shooting Mr. Chamberlain to death and then edit it out of the video provided to the District Attorney?

Kenneth Chamberlain explicitly stated to the police that he was okay several times before they broke down his door and killed him in his own home.

Mr. Chamberlain also informs the LIFEAID operator that he is fine to which the LIFEAID operator attempts to cancel the call for service. However the White Plains Police refuse to leave. Why?

The White Plains Dispatcher states that he is not going to withdraw the officers when he states, “Right, yea they’re going to make entry anyway.”

An Officer on scene states, “We can’t leave without checking you out.”

Why?

Mr. Chamberlain is engaging you; the WPP officer, in conversation through the door, obviously afraid of being contacted by you directly and therefore armed himself for self-defense protection should you attack him after unlawfully entering his house.

Why does Mr. Chamberlain fear the White Plains police to begin with?

Why does the Dispatcher lie to the LIFEAID operator by stating that the officers at the scene have a key to Mr. Chamberlain’s door and are not going to break the door down?

Mr. Chamberlain asks the officers why are they at his residence. One of the officers responds by stating that LIFEALERT called them.

The officers go to a scene to conduct a welfare check because LIFEALERT called them there and then LIFEALERT informs the officers that it was a false alarm and do not need to make contact with Mr. Chamberlain. The question is, why did the officers follow the directions of LIFEALERT when called to the residence and then refuse to follow directions of LIFEALERT when LIFEALERT directed them to leave?

At one point during the incident with the police, Mr. Chamberlain’s sister and the LIFEAID operator request that they be allowed to contact Mr. Chamberlain in an attempt to calm him down and reassure Mr. Chamberlain that the police were not going to harm him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the situation the White Plain’s Police Dispatcher responds by stating, “were not going to play mediator or anything between the two of them. Okay. We can’t play those games right now. We got a serious situation going on, we’re trying to figure it out, were trying to get a resolution going….. we’re trying to resolve the situation the best we can.”

The situation is the police are breaking down a United States Citizens’ door to determine whether or not he is having a medical emergency. The citizen has repeatedly informed the police and the LIFEAID service that no emergency has occurred.

What is the “serious situation” that the White Plain’s Police Dispatcher is referring to?

The only serious situation is the one his fellow officers are creating by unlawfully breaking down a United States Citizens’ door.

Is breaking down a Marine’s door who has not committed any crime, who was not threatening any officers and then tasering him and shooting him to death the best you can do White Plains Police?

What would have been the result had Officer Carrelli and the other officers been directed by their superiors, the police dispatcher, to leave Mr. Chamberlain’s residence after he informed them that he was okay?

“Oh, Mr. Chamberlain could have died from a heart attach if we did not check him out,” you say and would be liable if you did not conduct physical exam of him.

Really, then if you are taking responsibility for Mr. Chamberlain’s life after he told you to leave him alone, then surely you should want to take responsibility for Mr. Chamberlain’s life as result of your actions to make contact with him that resulted in his death.

Why was it necessary for the police to enter Mr. Chamberlain’s home and without the aid of Mr. Chamberlain’s sister who was there to assist them?

What was the justification for entering Mr. Chamberlain’s home after he had demonstrated to both LIFEALERT and the police that he was physically okay?

White Plains Police Officer Anthony Carelli why did you need to enter Mr. Chamberlain’s home by breaking down his door after being informed that no emergency had occurred and that Mr. Chamberlain had informed you and the medical aid service, LIFEALERT, that he was okay?

Was Mr. Chamberlain a threat to you Officer Carelli when you were locked out of his apartment?

No he wasn’t was he. You were the threat Officer Carelli from beginning to end.

Why were you in such a hurry to get inside of Mr. Chamberlain’s home where you shot him dead?

If the agents of the government can force their way onto a citizens’ private property with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed then the 4th Amendment does not exist and we are not free.

If we are not allowed to defend ourselves against physical harm committed upon us by others, then we are not free.

Every Marine in America should be on the door step of Westchester District Attorney
Janet Difiore’s door step demanding justice for every one of you Marines defended the freedom to live in one’s home without being accosted by the government which Janet Difiore and Officer Carelli have just eviscerated.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/4/family_of_kenneth_chamberlain_sr_seeks

Out from behind the Palo Alto Police cloak of deception

Mark Petersen-Perez — Fri, 04 May 2012 15:55:18 +0000

PAPD April Wagner hiding from the facts

“If we say a police officer takes an oath of office to uphold the law, if we require that they must be of good moral character and integrity…then someone who is found to have lied or falsified their notes, can they be said to be upholding their oath? Can they be said to have demonstrated integrity?”…… “My simple, non-legal mind says: That’s misconduct.”

-The chair of the civilian oversight Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukherjee-

During a follow-up meeting held on April 10^th 2012 concerning the newly planned city of Palo Alto Massage Ordinance. PAPD Lead Detective Lt. April Wagner was previously asked to provide and furnish a full analysis of sex crime trends and complaints having an effect on Palo Alto and its citizens with respect to the massage profession and why the need for greater state mandated restrictions and policing.

Prior to this meeting Ms. Wagner had in fact provided the Policy and Services Committee Staff with a *report which outlined 10 complaints of a sexual nature going back ten years.

However, when questioned by the committee in regards to the individual specifics of each complaint, Ms. Wagner stated in part, that do to the restrictive and confidential nature of the crimes committed those records cannot be disclosed.

In other words Ms. Wagner was unable to substantiate the existence of any crimes or complaints having occurred as to time place or manner in Palo Alto. Palo Alto criminal defense attorney Tom Nolan in an email response had this to say:

“I was very surprised by what I observed at the city council’s committee meeting. I was pleased to see a thoughtful council asking important and clear questions to members of the Palo Alto police department.

I was very concerned that the answers given, were not only non-responsive, but, in more than one example, not true. This was insulting to me, was insulting to the community and I believe insulting to the council members. We are a far more intelligent, educated and thoughtful community than the Lt. [Wagner] seems to understand.”

We believe Ms. Wagner as the Chief Detective in charge in all investigative aspects including state compliance of this newly city wide planned massage ordinance certainly had within her capacity access to all criminal justice systems and information available to reveal any and all current and past criminal activity records and chose not to do so.

For this reason we further believe Ms. Wagner set out to use her color of law and authority to deceive and distort the facts presented to the committee as to any and all alleged existence of any crimes having occurred by implying that any information available was deemed confidential and subject to non-public disclosure. Ms. Wagner has a long history of misleading the general public having ‘lied or falsified [her]… notes.’

As one community member put it concerning her apparent lack of presenting qualified past criminal information framed her deception in the following context. She, Wagner presented “thoughtful solutions” to a problem(s) that didn’t exist’…

Exposing Wagner’s deception and her awareness of the law

In the face of the Palo Alto police department’s inability to present any facts of sexual criminal activity or misconduct having occurred in Palo Alto during the past ten years and her apparent deliberate attempts to mislead the policy and services committee members, the general public including the Massage Therapy Profession, Palo Alto Free Press has set out to uncover, present and disclose the true facts of any sexual criminal activities having occurred through a California Public Records Request Act.

The scope of our request was presented on April 13th, 2012 to Palo Alto city attorney Molly Stump in accordance with California Government Code & 6254 (f) (1) as follows:

“(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.”

We intend to publish the results of our request as soon as they become available and force the Palo Alto police – “Out from behind the Palo Alto Police cloak of deception”.

Editor’s notes: Emails to city attorney Molly Stump and phone calls as to the status of our request have gone unanswered. City attorney Molly Stump is currently in violation of California Government Code & 6254 having failed to respond to the 10 day mandated requirement.

See related links below for more information:

Who should regulate the Massage Therapy Profession – The Health Department or Police?

*April 10^th 2011 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report- Massage Ordinance Follow-up

New Palo Alto city attorney pledges ‘transparency’

In Honor of a Patriot

Tony Ciami — Thu, 03 May 2012 03:49:14 +0000

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom.” Clarence Darrow

Sanford Keller
May 4, 1941-April 12, 2012
Palo Alto, California
Submitted by Michael and Kimberly Osborne

Sanford “Sandy” Keller, the son of Jewish immigrants, who became a lawyer for the rights of the poor and powerless, passed away on April 14th.

Keller devoted his life to helping prisoners and other clients who could not pay him. His toughest fight lasted 12 years and took him from the parole board to regulatory panels and all the way to the federal courts. It ended on Dec. 4, 1989, when the federal court of appeals overturned the conviction of Mr. Keller’s client Francisco Perez, who had been wrongfully convicted in 1977 on charges of armed-robbery.

Sanford Isaac Keller was born on May 4, 1941, in Palo Alto. He attended Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, and graduated from USC and Santa Clara Law School.

In 1970, he went to work for a federally financed legal services agency in a basement storefront in downtown San Francisco. Three years later, he joined the Legal Aid Society, to represent indigent clients in the Bay Area. He first worked on criminal cases, and then on appeals for the society. In 1983, Mr. Keller started a private practice, mainly taking clients who could not afford to pay him much, if anything. He retired from full time law practice in 2001.

Mr. Keller is survived, in addition to his wife, by their daughter, Kimberly Osborne; two sons, Kyle of Seattle, Wash., and Matthew of New York City, N.Y.; a sister, Caroline Lehman of San Jose, Calif.; and a granddaughter.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/print/sanford-keller?o=1667

Why a fundamental understanding of jury nullification is so critical to taking back our criminal justice system

Aram James — Wed, 02 May 2012 03:18:17 +0000

On April 19, 2012 New York federal Judge Kimba Wood dismissed an indictment against 80-year old Julian P. Heicklen for alleged jury tampering in the case against him for handing out materials to members of the public regarding the right of jurors to apply the historic doctrine of jury nullification.

Nullification is the right of jurors to come back with a verdict of not-guilty even if the jurors believe that the defendant in fact technically violated the law, but the jurors conclude that the law in question is an immoral or bad law or a reasonable law applied in a discriminatory fashion.

In dismissing the case Judge Wood commented that a person violates the jury tampering law only when they try to influence a juror in a specific case pending before those same jurors– but not for merely handing out informational materials (protected First Amendment activity) to members of the public who come to the courthouse for a variety of reasons–not necessarily related to jury duty.

The right of jurors to veto or nullify an unjust law—or a law that may be fair on its face but is being applied in a discriminatory fashion–is critical to our democracy and to our ability to serve as citizen jurors while being fully informed of our rights and options as decision makers. These rights are essential when our government calls us to sit in judgment regarding the guilt or innocence of our fellow citizens and community members

In an era where our government is increasingly cracking down on dissent (consider the response of the government to the occupy movement or to high profile whistle blowers such as Bradley Manning or Julian Assange) the decision by a federal judge to toss out an indictment against an 80-year-old citizen advocate for handing out materials to members of the public in front of a courthouse is a powerful rebuff to the U.S. government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate and steal from its citizens the right to think and speak freely and to exercise their independent judgment in the context of their jury service.

The judge’s decision to toss the indictment goes a long way to prevent—or at least to mitigate– jury tampering activity by judges and or prosecutors who – on occasion — purposely attempt to leave jurors with the wrong and intimidating impression: that to do anything other than to convict the person on trial is itself a criminal act.

Historically brave and courageous jurors refused to convict those charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act and other immoral laws despite the best efforts of prosecutors and judges to steer jurors towards a conviction.

In the contemporary setting, if more jurors were fully informed of their right to disregard immoral or discriminatorily enforced laws—such as California’s “Jim Crow Drug Laws” and the racially motivated three-strike law—they would undoubtedly refuse to convict many defendants charged under these morally repugnant and frequently discriminatory laws.

The bottom line is that any grassroots organization attempting to reform or rebuild the criminal justice system from the ground up must understand and be willing to educate members of the public regarding their basic rights as jurors—including the right to veto or nullify bad laws.

Failure to educate the public in this regard is to assist and aid the state in wrongfully convicting members of our own communities. Knowledge is power and it’s time we go out into our communities and spread the word—we can just say no to bad laws.

Judge Kimba Wood’s action in dismissing the indictment in the Julian Heicklen case is cause for wide celebration-since we now know we are on solid legal ground when we decide to organize our communities around fundamental concepts of justice and our desire to take back our criminal justice system.

We can take back our criminal justice system from the forces that would prefer that justice be administered and understood for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the majority of people. The majority of people who must interact daily with the intentionally maintained mysterious and often baffling criminal justice system.

In California –pursuant to the holding in People v. Williams 25 Cal. 4th 441 (2001), jurors are explicitly precluded from exercising the doctrine of jury nullification. In fact, if a judge discovers that a juror is refusing to apply the law to a case–he or she may be discharged from the jury.

On the other hand, if the judge is unaware that the jury has engaged in nullifying what they perceive to be an unfair or bad law—the double jeopardy clause would prohibit retrial of an acquitted defendant. In Sparf v. U.S. 156 U.S. 51 (1894) the U.S. Supreme Court—in a 5 to 4 decision—held that federal judges are not required to instruct jurors on their right to nullify bad laws.

Understanding the power of jury nullification is one way to even the odds of obtaining justice for all. To learn more about the power of jury nullification check out the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA).

Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County deputy public defender—and a co-founder of the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project (ACJP) –a grassroots legal advocacy organization—located in San Jose, CA.

*In a future article the author intends to discuss the provocative and controversial use of race-based jury nullification. The doctrine of race-based jury nullification has been popularized by Law Professor Paul Butler.

After 50 years, Cubans hope to travel freely

Newsource Internet — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:09:26 +0000

HAVANA (AP) — After controlling its citizens comings and goings for five decades, Cuba appears on the verge of a momentous decision to end many travel restrictions, with one senior official saying a “radical and profound” change is weeks away.

That comment, by Parliament Chief Ricardo Alarcon, has residents, exiles and policymakers abuzz with speculation that the much-hated exit visa could be a thing of the past, even if Raul Castro’s government still carefully limits the travel of doctors, scientists, military personnel and others in sensitive roles.

Other top Cuban officials have cautioned against over-excitement, most recently at a weekend teleconference designed to bridge the gap with Cuban emigrants, leaving islanders and Cuba experts to wonder how far Havana’s aging leaders are willing to go.

In the last 18 months, Castro has already removed prohibitions on some private enterprise, legalized real estate and car sales, and allowed compatriots to hire employees, ideas that were long anathema to the government’s Marxist underpinnings. But scrapping travel controls could be an even bigger step, at least symbolically, and it carries enormous economic, social and political risk.

Even half measures such as cutting staggeringly high visa fees or ending limits on how long Cubans can live abroad would be significant.

“It would be a big step forward,” said Philip Peters, a Cuba expert at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. “If Cuba ends the restrictions on its own citizens’ travel, that means the only travel restrictions that would remain in place would be those the United States imposes on its citizens.”

The move would open the door to increased emigration, and make it easier for those overseas to avoid forfeiting their residency rights, a fate that has befallen waves of exiles since the 1959 revolution. It could also bolster the number of Cubans who travel abroad for work, increasing remittances in the short term and investment by a new moneyed class in the long.

Peters and several other analysts said they doubted the new rules would bring about any immediate shift in Washington’s Cuba policies, including a ban on American tourism, which are entrenched and enjoy the backing of powerful Cuban American exiles.

“I don’t think it would lead to a drastic change in U.S. policy, but an accumulation of human rights improvements could lead to an incremental change,” he said.

Rumors of the exit visa’s imminent demise have circulated on and off for years. The whispers became open chatter last spring after the Communist Party endorsed migration reform at a crucial gathering — only for Castro to dash those hopes in December, saying the timing wasn’t right and the “fate of the revolution” was at stake.

Alarcon’s comments in an interview published in April then revived hopes nonetheless that a bold move is coming.

“One of the questions that we are currently discussing at the highest level of the government is the question of emigration,” he told French journalist Salim Lamrani. “We are working toward a radical and profound reform of emigration that in the months to come will eliminate this kind of restriction.”

But Saturday, Vice Foreign Minister Dagoberto Rodriguez told exiles not to set their hopes too high, vowing the government would always maintain some travel controls so long as it faced a threat from enemies in Washington.

Havana residents say they are on the edge of their seats waiting to see what the government does.

“The time has come to get rid of the exit visa,” said Vivian Delgado, a 45-year-old shopworker. “It’s absurd that as a Cuban I must get permission to leave my country, and even worse that I need permission to come back.”

Added Domingo Blanco, a 24-year-old state office worker: “It’s as if one needed to ask to leave one’s own house.”

Many Cubans are reluctant to talk about their own experience with the exit visa . One woman named Miru, who has been trying to leave Cuba since 2006, shared her story on the condition her full name not be used for fear that speaking with a foreign journalist could land her in trouble.

“This has been a very long process,” she said of her odyssey, which began when her husband defected from a medical mission in Africa and sought asylum in the United States.

First, she had to get a letter releasing her from her job at a government ministry — a process that took five years. Only then could she even apply for the exit visa. That was three months ago, and Miru still hasn’t received an answer. Officials say her case is complicated, but won’t give her a specific reason for the delay.

“I am very anxious to see my husband again,” she said.

The exit controls are a Cold War legacy of Cuba’s alliance with the Soviet Union, instituted in December 1961 to fight brain drain as hundreds of thousands of doctors and other professionals fled — many for new lives in South Florida. That was three months before the U.S. embargo barring most trade with the island went into full effect.

Over the years, it has become much easier for Cubans to obtain permission to travel, though many are still denied and it is particularly hard to take minors out of the country.

Bureaucratic fees are another obstacle. The exit visa’s $150 price tag is a small fortune in a country where salaries average about $20 a month. Whomever the traveler wishes to visit also must pay $200 at a Cuban consulate overseas.

Those who leave only get a 30-day pass, and the cost of an extension varies by country. In the United States, the fee is $130 a month. Those who stay abroad more than 11 months lose the right to reside in Cuba. Before 2011, any property would automatically go to the state.

“The Cuban government has monetized every part of the humiliating process of coming and going,” said Ann Louise Bardach, a longtime Cuba expert and author of “Without Fidel: A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana and Washington.” ”Getting out means running a gauntlet and it is all based on how much humiliation you can endure, and by the time they end up in Miami, people are filled with hate and dreams of revenge.”

Cuban officials have long defended the measures as a necessary counter to Washington’s efforts to meddle. They accuse the U.S. of trying to lure away doctors by letting them walk into any American consulate and request asylum. Havana says it spends more than $40,000 apiece to train doctors who are sent on missions to allies such as Venezuela, which gives Cuba billions of dollars in oil in return.

Even ordinary islanders are encouraged to leave, Cuban officials say, by U.S. regulations that automatically grant asylum to any who reach U.S. shores, a policy Cuba says has encouraged thousands to attempt the dangerous trip on leaky boats and makeshift rafts across the Florida Straits.

It’s not clear how migratory reform will affect dissidents, who are routinely denied permission to leave and could still find themselves on some form of no-exit list.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez called the exit controls “our own Berlin Wall without the concrete. … A wall made of paperwork and stamps, overseen by the grim stares of soldiers.” She has been denied travel papers at least 19 times by her own count.

Noted hunger striker Guillermo Farinas, who said he has been turned down five times since 2006, worried that migratory reform could include a loophole that authorities would use to keep dissidents from returning.

“If there is no restriction like that, yes, I would try to leave,” said Farinas, who won the European Union’s 2010 Sakharov human rights prize but was unable to accept it in person.

Scrapping exit controls should win Cuba kudos in Europe, which improved ties after dozens of political prisoners were freed in 2010; U.S. policymakers more focused on democratic reform are likely to be more guarded.

“The reaction in Washington will be positive, but measured,” said Arturo Lopez-Levy, an exiled Cuban economist at the University of Denver.

Some hardliners in Florida have already predicted that any change will be merely a sleight of hand designed to export malcontents, ease a severe housing shortage and fob off legions of superfluous state workers.

But for hundreds of thousands of Cubans like Miru, the exit visa is not a political matter, but a personal ordeal.

After six years separated from her husband, she’s terrified of somehow jeopardizing her chances of going overseas. She holds onto hope that she’ll finally obtain permission or benefit from a change in the law.

“I have followed all the rules of my country,” she said. “I’ll be so happy to leave.”

By PAUL HAVEN | Associated Press –

____

Associated Press writers Andrea Rodriguez and Peter Orsi contributed to this report

____

Follow Paul Haven on Twitter: www.twitter.com/paulhaven