Palo Alto Police Department Defies Federal Court Order

Today was the deadline for the Palo Alto police department to produce the MAV (Mobile Audio Visual) recording ordered by Federal Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal surrounding the tazing events of Tony Ciampi.

Mr. Ciampi has been attempting to acquire the original recordings for the past three years and has been met with repeated opposition.

City attorney Donald Larkin has stated to the press in the past; “we’ve really bent over backwards to provide everything that he’s entitled to and then some”.

The only problem is, the PAPD hasn’t produced the unadulterated unedited version which Mr. Ciampi alleges to have been altered.

The PAPD’s recent actions appears to confirm Mr. Ciampi’s on-going suspicion of a continued conspiracy which includes the DA’s office in there non-involvement to assist Mr. Ciampi in producing  the original MAV recordings.

In an earlier statement by, Federal Judge Paul Grewal, in reference to in his federally issued court order to produce the original MAV, he states;

The undersigned, will not oversee a production [ MAV recordings] that should have taken place without court intervention.”

In an interview with Mr. Ciampi concerning the on-going delays, he stated, “Based upon the evidence that I have given Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, I know that he could obtain a warrant from a judge to seize the PAPD’s MAV server.

Based upon representations made by the PAPD and their attorneys, I believe that it is possible for Mr. Rosen to recover the original MAV videos from the MAV server’s hard drive just like I believe he can recover the original taser videos from the “forensic copy” of the taser video’s hard drive in possession of the Santa Clara County Crime Lab.

Recovery software is available for free over the web.  For reasons only known to Mr. Rosen he chooses not to obtain the hard drive or recover the original videos”.

PAPD Charles Cullen technical services coordinator

In Mr. Ciampi’s latest attempts to obtain the original MAV videos,  he claims that the PAPD is defying the court order by saying that the only person available to produce the MAV videos, is Brian Furtado who is on vacation and will not be returning until Monday.

Mr. Ciampi claims there are other knowledgeable PAPD staff members available including Brian Furtado boss Mr. Charles Cullen who was caught enjoying a cup of coffee at Peets next to Whole Foods downtown Palo Alto today.

 

Bob Moss Palo Alto’s Hell Raiser – Or ‘Pillar for the community’

The Neo- Bob Moss Hell Raiser

Pillar of the community?  More like a modern day Desk Top Icon.  Bob Moss has left his mark on the Palo Alto community for decades now.

From chasing whorehouses out of town to pushing the government to restore another State Icon Mofftet Fields, Hanger one.

I would best describe Bob Moss as an iconic person who has devoted himself to the preservation and wholesome quality of life for everyone to enjoy, including thousands of visitors to Palo Alto from around the globe.

No!  Bob Moss is more like a Greek God ravished by time.  The difference is, he never stands still long enough for birds to poop on him.

As a long time critic myself, who seeks to improve the quality of life in Palo Alto as well.  Bob Moss has been the only person who has publicly given me any sense of creditability in reference to my pointing out the city’s outlandish and outrageous overtime payout. 60 thousand dollars in overtime going out to one Palo Alto police officer alone….

The power of the internet has changed the lives of everyone as history unfolds before us all.  And so, the good, the bad and the ugly history and legacy of Bob Moss is well published and documented for all to enjoy.

Soon statues and brass plaques to memorialize a persons life works will perhaps be soon replaced by the next generation of Google’s new three dimensional holographic figure of Bob Moss appearing right next to us all.  And so we solute Bob Moss!

And for your enjoyment, bit’s of Bob Moss’s iconic past……

From chasing Whores out town to the rebuilding and restoration of Moffett Field’s Hanger One.

http://www.queeg.com/bobmoss/hell-raiser.pdf

Palo Alto revives cry of ‘Lust, say no’ “It was a place to come for a message – Plus”  Bob Moss

http://www.queeg.com/bobmoss/anti-porn2.pdf

Former NAS Moffett Field Mountain View, California

http://1.usa.gov/hkVia7

Dismantling of a Silicon Valley landmark: Hangar One demolition begins

http://bit.ly/gLODFN

Auto Accident Corner of Loma Verde and Middlefield Rd

Officer police cadet in training directing traffic

At approximately 7:00PM this evening two cars collided with injuries being report by two witnesses standing at the sidewalk.

According to one long time resident who wished to remain anonymous stated that over the years there have been a number of fatalities at this intersection.

Attempts to talk with Officer Ken Kratt at the scene for further information were unsuccessful.  He was unwilling to discuss the matter further and referred me on to the watch commander.

Police 911 dispatch speaking in behalf of Police Information Officer (PIO) Kara Salazar stated there would be no further press releases.

PA Fire Department Responds

Ciampi vs City of Palo Alto Motion for Summary Judgment Denied?

In the matter of Tony Ciampi and the city of Palo Alto today’s hearing in Federal Court is far from over.  Mr. Steven Sherman, lead attorney for the city of Palo Alto was hoping for a summary default judgment do to a lack of any real evidence submitted by plaintiff Tony Ciampi which would point and prove to negligence, use of force and or any other wrong doing on the part of PAPD Officers April Wagner aka Chan/Wagner and Kelly Burger and potentially bring to an end to further proceedings.

Ciampi’s arrest had been previously acknowledged and ruled unconstitutional by Superior Court Judge Thang Nguyen Barrett.   Mr. Sherman was hoping for immunity stating the officers simply made a mistake in all events leading to up Mr. Ciampi’s tazering and arrest.   Judge Lucy Koh was not buying any part of that argument based on Judge Barrett’s previous ruling.

In fact, Judge Lucy Koh chastised Mr. Sherman for the apparent disconnect and inconsistencies in evidence submitted by police dispatch testimony and the police reports offered up by officers Wagner and Burger.   She stated, “I don’t appreciate being misled” after reviewing previous testimony.  Mr. Sherman was quick to apologize.

Mr. Ciampi also alleges that not only did the PAPD falsify evidence and tamper with video and audio data while held in a secured police evidence room Mr. Ciampi, in his latest motion alleges Mr. Sherman was involved and implicit with the PAPD in his deception and conspiracy claims.

Mr. Sherman was visibly moved by judge Lucy Koh’s mention of Mr. Ciampi’s latest motion and ordered a separate hearing to address the merits of Mr. Ciampi claims of unethical behavior.

Clearly, this is not what Mr. Sherman was hoping for.  In fact, Mr. Sherman complained that Mr. Ciampi’s motions amounted to the works of a “Rambling” man in earlier testimony.

To the contrary, Judge Koh thanked both parties and concludes by saying, how she appreciated both as having been “informative” and in my opinion, hardly the works of a “Rambling” man.

This case is far from being over much to Mr. Sherman’s chagrin.  Mr. Sherman in hind sight perhaps never thought in his wildest imagination the depth and strength of Mr. Ciampi’s new found legal knowledge and the swiftness of his legal blows to an otherwise seasoned attorney.

Federal Judge Lucy Koh, has ordered the next scheduled court date involving alleged improprieties on the part attorney Steve Sherman on  June 30th, 2011 at 1:30pm.

Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:56 AMLatest email comments from Tracey Kaplan Staff Writer, Mercury News

Tony, actually, i do care. I believe yr story. I tried to get the best private attorney in sj on factual innocence and justice layouts to take yr case.

I wrote dolores carr a letter to try to get the crime lab results released. I told people abt the injustice u have suffered. I tried to work w u to write abt it in hopeds of embarrassing carr to release/acknowledge the police misconduct and expose the potential for tinkering w taser results, which i think is a national concern.

I just dont have time to deal w the mountain of email i get from people.

If u let me know every once in a while what is going on believe me id be interested. Regardless of wht u may think of me, i truly  hope u win because what was done to u is wrong. And i know that because i confirmed yr test tesults with the lab and find yr story 100 pervent credible.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

MasterPlanning!: California’s High Speed Railway: The Pros and Cons

PRO: There is political will to build it. The votes from both AB 3034 and Proposition 1A confirmed that people in California really do want this rail. I wrote an article a while back that basically asked for people to consider voting “no” on 1A based on several factors, but none of them rejected the basic premise that a high speed rail would be an amazing addition to our infrastructure. Imagine how awesome it would be to jump on a train and zoom up and down the California coast with reckless abandon. Or even know that you could take the train right into San Diego or San Francisco without having to deal with city traffic!

CON: California is broke. Really broke. In fact, so broke that we’re selling property, our schools, and even our shelters for homeless men and battered women. What will happen to these existing social services has yet to be revealed. Bad as those are for the state, what’s more dangerous is that California has already cut $3.4 billion from existing transit services and upgrades throughout the state. With that in mind, it seems counterintuitive to place a ton of money into the development of high speed rail that a relatively small portion of California will use daily, instead of placing money in local transit lines that a relatively large portion of California will use daily.

PRO: The federal government, state government, local government, and new private investment may be able to cover the costs of construction. The California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) website states that the estimated cost for completion will be $45 billion, and state and local funding will provide about $9 billion, with the same amount matched by the Federal government. The rest will come slowly from public/private partnerships; for example, a rule could be created that a developer will be allowed to build a community by a transit stop only if they also build the transit stop. It may be tricky to broker each and every deal, but eventually it’ll be covered to the full cost.

Japanese bullet trains
Japanese bullet trains

CON: A public relations company is required to manage the CHSRA’s business plan. Not a railway company. Not a state agency. Not even a financial firm. A public relations company. Does the CHSRA think that people need to be further convinced, or were they so sure they’d run into problems that only a PR firm and not a financial firm (who would also have the right to flexibly negotiate with all possible pros and cons in mind) had the expertise to manage. The firm chosen: Mercury Public Affairs.

PRO: The rail line will take you from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2.5 hours. In fact, the proposed speed of the rail line will be 220 mph, which is comparable to (if not faster than) trains that run on Shinkansen, Japan’s high speed rail system. From L.A. to Irvine in 30 minutes, or from L.A. to San Diego in an hour. And you won’t have to deal with bottlenecked traffic once you get into city limits.

CON: Compatibility issues like you’ve never seen before. There isn’t yet a strong, comprehensive environmental impact report, and that is definitely not a good sign for something that would likely completely reshape the landscape around it. What’s worse is that there is only a promised intent to devise a zero-emission system, while the state of California is fighting tooth-and-nail to determine and then diminish the level of CO2 and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which is why we all voted to uphold AB 32). Will the processes of construction, shipping and manufacturing also be green? I doubt it, unless there are mandates for those processes, and right now those don’t exist.

More to the point on compatibility issues, though, what works in one place won’t even work a mile down the line. What happens when this super-rail arrives in L.A.? Los Angeles isn’t planned to manage any kind of real transportation infrastructure, so you’re still gonna need your car there, San Francisco people. Zoning ordinances are jumbled, right-of-way issues will have to be determined on the fly in some cases, and though there are lots of incentives to create transit-oriented developments, the city’s record for the actual promotion of their development is a bit flimsy.

PRO: It’ll likely help support the development of a transportation infrastructure. I mean, we’re already so lacking in terms of transit infrastructure here in Los Angeles (as my past articles in the “Trip the Light Rail” series have shown) that anything that could spur interest in the development of light rail lines would be an important step in the right direction. The governor’s already signed legislation to develop the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (Infill), which has benefited from and feeds right into Proposition 1A to build the high speed rail, a good step toward building the base for new local rail lines.

CON: It won’t be completed until 2018 at the earliest, and we shouldn’t wait that long to start developing transit-oriented developments. We’ll see no return on the money spent to get it working until it opens, and although it’s cheap to build things now because of the recession, the cost of materials and labor will increase dramatically by then, which should make it increasingly more difficult to predict just how far you can make $45 billion go.

China Railways high speed train
China Railways high speed train

PRO: It will help to further stimulate the growth of transit-oriented developments, and in turn smart growth. As of right now, communities across California (those in Los Angeles and Orange counties in particular) have been pretty slow to pick up on the whole “smart growth” thing simply because our communities weren’t designed with the utilization of rail in mind. As use of the high speed rail is further promoted, you’ll begin to see the organic growth of businesses around the stops along the way: it’s just too lucrative an opportunity for local businesses to pass up. The centralization of those goods and services will help to advocate for more of these developments along the existing transit lines in Los Angeles, as well as the promotion of walkability and (one hopes) more vibrant street scenes, once local businessmen and developers realize that we don’t have to use cars to get everywhere. The signing of the Transit-Oriented Development Program after Proposition 1A is proof-positive that we’re on the right track.

CON: So much money will be flying around that the contracts for construction will likely be given to campaign contributors and maybe not even bid publicly. The aforementioned Mercury Public Affairs are already part of this problem. The Los Angeles Times, in a subhead to the title, states that “Ethical questions are being raised” regarding their bid acceptance, so let’s answer that question for them: “Yes, the Governor’s former campaign manager’s PR firm was given preference.” It happens all the time; why should this time be any different?

PRO: The train service will be more frequent, ultimately more timely, and just better overall. A key focus of the plan to develop a high speed rail is to increase the quality of mobility throughout the areas it services. To this end, the Berkeley Simulation Software Rail Traffic Controller has been developed to give an accurate estimate of how quickly and efficiently the train can move, automatically adjusting for things like terrain. Similar modeling software has been used for engineering feats like seismic resistance and airplane speed modeling, and they’ve, generally speaking, been pretty representative of how things will actually work in the real world. Also, the CHSRA estimates that the number of intercity drivers will be reduced by 70 million annually. That is a huge chunk of traffic, a significant reduction in carbon dioxide output, and a reason to reduce construction on new roads and airport gates and runways.

high speed train warning sign

CON: The high speed railway can’t solve all of our problems. It’s really just meant to be another option. We can’t go around acting like no one will ever drive or take a plane up and down the California coast just because there’s a high speed train. That would be sort of stupid on the part of planners, who will be forced to figure out how other forms of traffic will accommodate the high speed railway as it’s being built. Although the railway will eliminate the need to develop new highways, airports and runways, we cannot yet model how its development will affect the development and upkeep of local roadways. For example, it may be easy to cross a large field with your car, but once the high speed railway is installed the nearest crossing might be a quarter of a mile away.

PRO: Options are good. The most important argument here for the development of the high speed rail is that it takes money away from the highway and airport development projects that it seeks to replace. Our options, in this case, would be to either develop more roads and airports (which will just spew more crap into the air) or finally shut up and do something about both our travel and our environmental problems. And really, those aren’t options, since we’d have to find the public-private money to develop those other, oil/gasoline guzzling modes of travel as well. We might as well think a little further into the future.

CON: Community opposition will absolutely turn up the heat once the development hits urban centers. This is already starting, but as soon as the public gets its hands on engineering documents or environmental reports, and as soon as the track schedule is announced, you’re going to see people left and right fearing for their property and the consistency of their way of life. We already know that most people wouldn’t want to live next to an airport, but imagine just how many people will have high speed trains flying by their homes and through their neighborhoods. The construction of the underground Red Line was tough, but laying new tracks throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties will be overwhelmingly daunting. In cases like this, just remember Murphy’s Law.

PRO: The high speed rail itself should be good for the environment, as long as the vision and plan remain zero-carbon. Aside from promoting more sustainable development, the CHSRA’s current plan seeks to make the rail completely sustainable. It will provide its own off-the-grid power, and won’t damage the environment, via state-of-the-art engineering practices. What’s more, the cost of fuel is the primary deterrent for those who would otherwise travel up and down the California coast more. Plane tickets seem outrageous because the cost of jet fuel is outrageous. So keeping the rail line environmentally efficient also keeps the cost per ticket low.

CON: The development of high-speed rail is going to take a very very brutal environmental toll. It doesn’t yet have a completed environmental impact report, so we don’t know the full extent of its impact on each community. But we do know that each community will have its own issues, each city will have its own laws, and each right-of-way ruling will have its own requirements. For example, MercuryNews.com reported that a judge has already ruled for an alternate route that will ultimately increase the bill by billions. There are people for and against shifting the route to accommodate other areas, and every change adds to the environmental toll the creation of this line will take.

PRO: Transit ridership numbers (comparative to car and plane ridership) has been steadily increasing beyond the capabilities of existing services. Partially because of the economy and partially because of the consistent increase in gas prices, both San Francisco and Los Angeles have seen significant increases in casual train ridership. This seems to make sense in San Francisco, where the trains service most of the city. In Los Angeles, it comes as a pleasant surprise, which advocates for the construction of the high-speed railway (especially if the CHSRA can use it to promote more transit-oriented development through our city).

hot Japanese high speed train workers
hot Japanese high speed train workers

CON: A big part of the budget will go to purchasing the property to lay the new rail lines. Some things are obvious, like buying land for stations and stops. Others are less obvious, like the need for expansion of the right-of-way by buying property one lot at a time. The hardest part is that, until the environmental impact report is finished and the final route is determined, the CHSRA won’t be able to determine how much money we’re going to need to put this rail line together. But it’s better to err on the side of “more expensive” than “less expensive.” I’d hate if the line could only be built from Sacramento to Bakersfield because the money ran out too soon.

PRO: The original plan seeks to share the Union Pacific right-of-way. The CHSRA won’t have to purchase as much land or work out the details of zoning right-of-ways for new train development. Without this element as a part of the plan, the CHSRA would have had to budget a ton of money into the development of space.

CON: Union Pacific didn’t know that, and now they’re in court trying to figure out the details. A little late, no?

PRO: High speed rail will bring a huge surge of money into the California economy. The official estimates are these: almost 160,000 construction-related jobs; ultimately, 450,000 permanent jobs to maintain the rail and railway; and more than $1 billion annual revenue surplus. Yes, surplus. And this doesn’t even include energy savings!

CON: There are serious practical implications for the implementation of something so visionary, but the most serious is that the budget will not be there for the grandiosity of its full vision. I won’t be surprised of only 15% to 20% of the money promised goes into the hard costs of construction. The rest will go to soft costs, like buying land, moving people, paying fees, managing policies, setting up meetings, et cetera. More importantly, the “cost” of this project doesn’t include a reimbursable for the time that city planners and professional officials will put into making sure that the construction of the rail line doesn’t screw up their communities. It might pay for the rails and own the land, but is the CHSRA’s budget going to accommodate a group of residents nearby who complain about the noise? Will it have a contingency for local contractors, who will undoubtedly try to weasel money out of the government without doing any real work? Will it have the budget to sue them afterward? Will it reimburse planners who will have to change up zoning ordinances to accommodate for the new rail? Will it have money ready for a lawsuit on the first day of testing, just in case someone stupid decides to play on the track and gets hit by a 220 mph train? These things will matter, and will eat away at the budget without getting anything built. Ask any contractor who’s ever worked on any government project: this stuff’s unavoidable and you can’t predict what’s going to happen.

PRO: But c’mon, government’s always going to be full of stupid amounts of bureaucracy and corruption. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t at least try! We’re still getting the thing built … isn’t that’s what matters?

Visibility, Credibility, Convertibility, Profitability – 4 Steps to Marketing your company

Having a great idea, money to fund your start-up and lots of ambition does not insure biz success. If you don’t know how to market your business there’s a good chance you’ll waste time, money and your biz will fail. For Your biz to succeed you must understand the 4 ……ilities – Visibility, Credibility, Convertibility and Profitability.

 

Visibility: To put it simply if people don’t know your business exists you won’t get customers. Sounds stupid, but I know many businesses that have no web presence, no biz card, have opened stores with no signage, work in construction and don’t put up a job sign in the front yard to name just a few. You must have a plan to get your name out there. The triple punch I use are old school networking, creating happy customers who refer my biz and using social media.

 

Credibility: If you don’t know what you’re doing in business look out – not only will people discover you don’t know what you’re doing they will let everyone know that your flake, that you don’t deliver, and if you really screw someone over you may find yourself in court. The best way to get credibility is to deliver on your business promise, get feedback from your customers,

From The Archives – Palo Alto’s Own Sex In The City

Her habit of rubbing people the thong / wrong way goes back a long time….City Attorney Donald Larkin may have the upper hand!!

Former PAPD Chief Lynne Johnson

By Matt Bowling / Daily News columnist

According to the late newspaper editor and historian Ward Winslow, Palo Alto once had an “unwanted reputation as the Peninsula’s largest sex-shop center.”

These days that may seem a little hard to imagine, but in the mid-1970s, the El Camino Real strip through Barron Park was lined with massage parlors. And as it turned out, they were offering a little more than just your basic stress-relieving rubdown.

The onslaught of adult fare came to Palo Alto in 1972 when a few mature bookstores moved in to empty properties along El Camino Real. They were soon joined by the X-rated Copenhagen Theatre at 3898 El Camino Real, the same building that later held the Santa Clara County Democratic Headquarters.

Before long, a number of massage parlors began to pop up throughout the city and by the winter of 1974, 10 massage parlors with names like “The Streaker” and “The Foxy Lady” blanketed an eight-block stretch along the old King’s Highway.

Crime and blight soon followed. Women complained of being propositioned while walking down the street and more family friendly businesses struggled to survive. Crime reports in the area were up, and sales were down. And by 1974, questions were being raised about what was really going on inside those massage parlors.

The Palo Alto police, at no small cost, organized a sting operation. Using mostly undercover officers from cities nearby, police confirmed that most of the parlors were little more than houses of prostitution. They accumulated more than 100 sworn statements that they then took to court.

As was later reported to the press, various sexual services were being offered as “extras” at the parlors with prices ranging between $30 and $100

Police spokesmen were quick to add that undercover officers had turned down all such offers.

Many of the parlor owners were actually legal Nevada brothel owners importing registered prostitutes to offer their services in Palo Alto.

Following the precedent set the previous year in Fremont, the Palo Alto police sought to close the parlors under the Red Light Abatement Act – a state anti-prostitution law dusted off from 1913. Armed with a court order from Judge Peter Arnello, the police acted quickly and decisively. At dawn on Friday, Dec. 3, 1976, teams of police officers, locksmiths and movers closed down most of the parlors down in hours, padlocking all 17 illegitimate massage parlors in Palo Alto.

In so doing, further evidence collected essentially ended any real hopes for the parlors to reopen in the city. Operators and masseuses were fined and, in some cases, put in jail. The police also went after some of the “Johns,” as well.

Current police Chief Lynne Johnson even donned “appropriate clothing,” as she put it, and posed as a masseuse, catching men on record asking for services which were not quite legal. One arrested attorney allegedly intended to pay for the services with a check from his wife with a note that read “Happy Birthday.”

Following the raid, the Palo Alto City Council put heavy restrictions on adult businesses that wanted to set up shop. A string of tight controls were also put on massage parlors – including bans on halter tops, tipping and massages after 11 p.m. Such rules have sometimes made business more difficult for legitimate relaxation centers. However, it’s been more than 30 years since the massage parlor crackdown, and there has not been much X-rated activity about the city since.

POLICE: Battle over message therapists renewed

The Massage Parlor Crackdown: Palo Alto’s Prostitution Problem

Palo Alto won’t ask for massage-client info

Palo Alto revives cry of ‘Lust, say no’ “It was a place to come for a message – Plus”  Bob Moss

California Senate Bill 731 – State of California

“It’s for police official use only,” Wagner said. “It’s not something that would be published anywhere.”

April Chan Wagner Client List Gate Keeper

 

Update: Email received from Bob Moss – ‘Lust, say no’
Apr 22, 2011
Mark;
“Yes, it was quite an effort getting rid of the whore houses posing as massage parlors on El Camino and a few other locations some 35 years ago. I recall when the council voted on the final ordinance there were about a dozen women from various “massage parlors” at city hall objecting to the ordinance.
One of them confronted some of us in the city hall lobby and shouted “Do I look like a whore?”   I told her I wasn’t expecting her to look different from anyone else, just as long as she didn’t act differently – when she went to work. The articles about amending the massage license law reminded me of those awful days.  I worked with 6 or 8 others from Barron Park and Ventura drawing up the ordinances and getting the cops to enforce them and shut all those places down.”

The 5 E’s of Managing a Small Business – From Doughnuts to Divorces

Tim Hmelar of Web Lunch Box at Twitter HQ in San Francisco

 

Are You a Small Business Owner wishing to grow your business and obtain more customers?  If so, You need to know the 5 E’s of Managing a Small Business for your specific business.

1.      Expectation:  What does your customer expect from engaging in a business relationship with you?  It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling doughnuts or divorces. You must know what your customer’s expectations are and be able to meet that need.  If you can’t deliver a great doughnut or end an unhappy marriage –  don’t offer your services.

2.      Economics: Can you meet your client’s needs at the agreed upon price?  All parties to a business transaction like/need/or want to know what this is going to cost.  You might walk into a doughnut shop and buy a doughnut without asking the cost of a doughnut, but it’s highly unlikely you would hire a divorce lawyer without knowing the cost of getting divorced.

3.      Efficiency: You must be able to deliver your doughnut or divorce in the fastest most efficient way possible.  You can’t waste your time or your customer’s time providing your service and, and you can’t spend financial resources for long that make you lose money.  How many people are going to wait more than 5 minutes for their doughnut or how many people are going to agree to spend more time than necessary with their psycho spouse while you play golf or go on vacation?

4.      Effective: You must deliver on your promise to meet your client’s expectations.  If you deliver a bagel instead of a doughnut or spend months of a client’s time and money only to deliver a temporary restraining order instead of the desired divorce you will have unhappy clients.  Not only will you have unhappy clients, they will tell everyone they know what an idiot you are when it comes to business.  And if they use Yelp they will go out and publicly trash your business on the internet.

5.      Evangelist: Here’s the super cool thing.  If you meet your customers (expectations), deliver your service at the agreed upon price (economics),  do it in the agreed upon time (efficiency), deliver exactly what you agreed upon or beat the agreed upon expectation (effective), you end up with an unpaid marketing and sales Evangelist for your business.  You can’t beat having a raving fan of your business telling everyone they  know about your product or services.  And if your customer is on Yelp they will probably go to the internet and publicly tell everyone how great your business is.

is the CEO and Founder of Web Lunch Box
a social media training and consulting company in Palo Alto, CA.  Tim devotes his professional time to helping small businesses grow their business, helps many community organizations achieve their goals, and loves to spend time with his family and with giving, kind people.

 

Palo Alto City Mayor Engages in a “Clear and present danger”

Our First Amendment Right has and will be the Chief Cornerstone of our democracy.  Nothing is of greater importance then in defending this right.  Historically, the courts have engaged in bitter battles in defining and shaping appropriate First Amendment speech.

Many have concluded that even the most antisocial, overt, threatening gestures are protected under the First Amendment.  However, when United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s rendered his opinion in the how famous case of Gitlow vs. New York 1925, he stated,  First Amendment freedoms are lost when speech poses an emanate threat of “clear and present danger” to our safety.

Such is the case with the recent actions of Palo Alto City Mayor Sid Espinoza who continues to abridge our freedom of speech by imposing prior restraints at directing criticism at government officials.

Sid Espinoza offers no sound legal opinion other than stating it conflicts with established city protocol and relies solely on the advice of city attorney Donald Larkin.  Both refuse to return phone calls or respond to email requests.

The United States Constitution combined with the California Constitution trumps any city protocol imposed and or prior restraints without “Due process” of law.   City attorney Donald Larkin and Mayor Sid Espinoza have both failed to address the following fundamental right of every citizen as follows.

“Congress shall make no [city] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Their joints actions to impose and abridge conditions of Free Speech during oral communications can only be best described as “obscene” and represents a “clear and present danger” to the overthrowing of  everyone’s right, to the Freedom of Speech.

Editors notes:

Oral communications during city council meetings is the time which any citizen, foreign and domestic can in fact address grievances.  What Mayor Sid Espinoza vehement objects to, is the directing of criticism to a specific government employee.  He claims, it’s unconstitutionally permissible and offers no legal basis.