Complaints against police officers can in fact take years to complete. With “legal roadblocks” thrown up by high powered defense teams making it appear virtually impossible to seek justice. One such “legal roadblock” – A Pitchess motion. http://bit.ly/9vfa8L
Mr. Steven M. Sherman, of Fergusan, Praet and Sherman the subject of this state bar complaint knows this “legal roadblock” all too well.
What is so very troubling is the fact that with all other professions; doctors, accountants, insurance agents, airline pilots, consumers of products and services and even lawyers have recourse of grievances if something goes wrong.
With police, were talking about an all together different animal. They have and do receive unprecedented support from unions (POA) , DA’s, judges and they even have an incredible “war chest” for defense funding.
The sad truth is quite often; even our legislators are supportive and protective of their light sentence. What we find often times when police officers are found innocent or even receiving reduced charges (plea bargaining) with no or very little jail time, there even held in protective jail cells away from the main prison population if in fact there sent to prison at all.
One PAPD police officer Luis Verbrea received a year in the county jail for raping and fondling while on duty. Anyone else would have received life in prison. His charges were even reduced too a misdemeanor by the sentencing judge.
And in some cases they even receive immunity. (California Vehicle Code Section 17004.7). This is one law on the books which should be repealed and the Law Offices of Fergusan, Praet and in good standing with the state bar for the moment, Mr. Sherman, knows it!
The beauty of a California State Bar complaint process, is how fast and efficient the whole process is with additional recourse available based on the outcome of the complaint. You’re entitled to petition “The California State Supreme Court”. Let’s watch now, as this complaint process begins and how it unfolds though our judicial system and it’s ultimate outcome.
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
Attorney Steven Sherman has knowingly and intentionally consented to the tampering of evidence in order to mislead the Court and myself regarding the facts in my civil lawsuit, C09-02655 LHK (PVT), presently being adjudicated in U.S. District Court The Northern District Of California (San Jose Division).
On November 5, 2010 I filed my, “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” with the Court which reveals Mr. Sherman’s latest violation of State Bar Rules and California and U.S. laws.
On October 28, 2010 I conducted a test on the taser cameras used to record the March 15, 2008 incident which is the basis for my civil lawsuit. Attorney Steven Sherman, the defendants’ counsel of record in my lawsuit, supervised this test. This test produced results that taser cameras merge several individual recordings into one recording. For reasons pointed out in my, “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” taser cameras do not merge several recordings into one
The only explanation as to why the taser camera used by the Defendants and Steven Sherman on October 28, 2010 merged several separate recordings into one recording is because the Defendants tampered with the operational function of the taser camera to create the falsified results with the intent to mislead me and the Court regarding the true facts of the case and to falsely explain why there is missing video footage in the taser videos.
Steven Sherman supervised the above test and emphatically stated that this is how taser cameras operate knowing full well that taser cameras do not merge several recordings into one recording.
Steven Sherman’s acts constitute a violation of Penal Codes 134 and 141. (a); Business and Professions Code 6106, 6068 (a) and (d) and State Bar Rules: 3-110, 5-200 (A)(B)(C).
As pointed out in, “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants’ Request For Clarification,” and “Plaintiff’s Notification To Court Requesting Clarification Of Discovery,” filed with the Court, Steven Sherman withheld and suppressed the information and evidence of the Palo Alto Police Department sending Defendant
Burger’s taser camera to Taser International in November 2008 for maintenance and repair. Steven Sherman continues to suppress the information and evidence regarding what reparative action was conducted on Defendant Burger’s taser camera.
This act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 5-220. In addition the above-mentioned act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 5-200 (A) and (B). On lines 6 through 8 of Steven Sherman’s Declaration page 10 of document 59 “Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Discovery; Declaration Of Steven A. Sherman,” Mr. Sherman states, “I am familiar with the facts and
circumstances of this lawsuit and if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify in conformance with the statements made herein.” State Bar Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct (E) states, that “In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.” Mr. Sherman violated State Bar Rule 5-200 (E).
As pointed out in my Motion to Compel Discovery, Exhibit 51, the copies of the MAV videos provided to me by the Defendants over the courses of my criminal and civil cases have different “Dates of Last Modification” and amounts of memory contained in the electronic video files.
I have previously sent the State Bar copies of these videos and should be available for review in your office. I clearly demonstrate in Exhibits 100 through 105 of document 62, “Reply Brief In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Order To Compel Defendants And Defendant Burns To Produce And Provide Discovery,” that the “Dates of Modification and amount of memory contained in the electronic video files should not change unless the files, the videos, have been edited is some fashion.
Despite several requests for the original MAV videos over the last year, Defendants had never provided me a copy of Temores’ MAV video containing the date and time that the video was created and saved, March 15, 2008.
On September 3, 2010 in response of my Discovery Request to Defendant Burns requesting Temores’ MAV video containing the Date of Last Modification of March 15, 2008, Steven Sherman had two DVD’s marked as Temores’ MAV video containing the “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008.
The videos sent to me had a “Date of Last Modification” of September 3, 2010. This act of deception was a deliberate attempt on the part of Steven Sherman to suppress evidence and mislead me and the Court as to the true facts of the case. I expose this false presentation of evidence in Exhibit 52 of document 55 my “Motion to Compel” and document 62 my “Reply Brief.”
The above act constitutes a violation of State Bar Rule 3-110 (A); 5-200 (A)(B) and 5-220.
As a result of exposing Mr. Sherman’s attempt at deceiving the Court and me, Mr. Sherman comes up with the excuse that he made the copies of the MAV videos sent to me on September 3, 2010 and not Defendant Burns/the Palo Alto Police which is why
the “Dates of Last Modification’ were not as claimed on the DVDs containing the MAV videos, lines 3 through 6 of document 65 “Defendants’ Brief Regarding Dispute Over Obtaining Original MAV Recordings Containing Digital Watermark.” Mr. Sherman
states, “Plaintiff alleges that he has not received copies of the recordings with a Palo Alto Police Department label stating that Brian Furtado created the disc. This is because the Palo Alto Police Department provided their counsel with the copied disc and defendant’s counsel made a copy from that for plaintiff.”
This statement verifies that Mr. Sherman knew that the “Date of Last Modification” on the copies he sent me on September 3, 2010 did and could not have had a “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008 as claimed by Mr. Sherman.
As pointed out in Exhibit 51 of document 55, “Motion to Compel Discovery” the different “Dates of Last Modification” and amount of memory clearly demonstrate that the Palo Alto Police has edited the MAV recordings. In order to explain why the “Date of Last Modification” and amount of memory changes the Defendants and Mr. Sherman are claiming that they must remove an embedded watermark from the MAV videos because the embedded watermark is proprietary and as such cannot be provided to me or
anyone for that matter, lines 17 through 23 of document 65.
If this were true then Mr. Sherman would not have provided a copy of the MAV videos containing the watermark to a neutral third party, Eduardo Guilarte on October 28, 2010.
More importantly, as I pointed out in document 72 “Supplemental Brief In Support of Plaintiff’s Brief Regarding Discovery Dispute….,” according to the manufacturer of the MAV videos, Kustom Signals, the watermark is embedded into the MAV videos for the intended purpose to transfer to all of the copies of any given video in order to detect who, when and where a copy or copies of any given MAV video are edited and falsified.
This contradicts Mr. Sherman’s statement in lines 16 through 18 of page 3 of document 65 that it is a concern of the Defendants that the MAV recorders can be altered and released to competitors. Mr. Sherman is avoiding the issue, the issue is providing a copy of the MAV recording containing the watermark and is placed there for the specific purpose of determining if a video has been altered.
On October 28, 2010 during an inspection of the MAV system and videos supervised by Steven Sherman, the Palo Alto Police produced a copy of Temores’ and Burger’s MAV videos containing the watermark and a “Date of Last Modification” of March 15, 2008 verifying my assertion that the “Date of Last Modification” does not change when making an exact duplicate of the videos and that the only reason why the “Date of Last Modification” and amount of memory contained in the electronic video files would change would be because the video had been edited and changed in some manner from the original, see “October 28 Inspection.”
In order to avoid providing me a copy of the MAV videos with the watermark, Mr Sherman and the Palo Alto Police took the MAV videos and re-created them in another company’s, “nero’s,” software, during the October 28, 2010 inspection. This contradicts
Kustom Signals literature and website which asserts that copies are made directly from Kustom Signals’ software, Exhibit 120 of document 72 “Supplemental Brief In Support of Plaintiff’s Brief Regarding Discovery Dispute…”
According to Steven Sherman, “Kustom Signals” has the ability to build video cameras and make software that creates videos from those cameras. Additionally, Kustom Signals has the ability to create and attach an electronic watermark to all copies of the videos created by its cameras as well as the software to analyze the watermark in order to detect tampering of any given video or copy of a video. Yet according to Steven Sherman, Kustom Signals does not have the ability to remove its own watermark and must rely on re-creating the video in another company’s, “nero’s, video editing software in order to do so.
Logic would dictate that if Kustom Signals did not intend to provide copies of its videos without the watermark, Kustom Signals would have the ability to remove its own watermark from its own videos. What would Kustom Signals do if there were no other company out there that had the software available to remove Kustom Signals’ watermark? There is no intent on the part of Kustom Signals to remove the watermark from any of its videos or copies made from its software.
On October 28, 2010 Steven Sherman supervised the inspection in which Palo Alto MAV Custodian Brian Furtado produced two MAV videos that did not have the watermark with the sole intent to justify why the previous copies provided to me have different “Dates of Last Modification” and amounts of memory contained on the electronic files.
These copies are once again falsified facts created by Steven Sherman in order to mislead the Court and me, which is a violation of Penal Codes 134, 141 (a); Business and Professions Code 6068 (a)(c)(d), 6106 and State Bar Rules 5-200 (A)(B), and 5-220.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Defendants have destroyed and falsified numerous pieces of evidence and continue to do so under the supervision of attorney Steven Sherman which is a violation Business and Professions Code 6068 (c).
Steven Sherman is undermining the due administrations of justice and violating my 14th Amendment right to due process. I need the State Bar to take immediate and decisive action to prevent Mr. Sherman from causing irreparable harm to my case.
Joseph (Tony) Ciampi
P.O. Box 1681
Palo Alto, CA 94302
For further information, please visit California State Bar at the following website: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/