Senate Intervention In Judge Koh’s Decision?

Federal Judge Lucy Koh

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Mr. Sessions and fellow Senators,

U.S. Federal Judge Lucy H. Koh’s Decision conceals the violations of law committed by the Palo Alto Police.

I have a civil case before Judge Lucy Koh 5:09-cv-02655. Judge Koh dismissed the thrust my case in complete contradiction to the facts and the law, essentially eliminating it, and in doing so concealed some of the most outrageous acts and egregious violations of law committed by a law enforcement agency in our nation’s history.

Mr. Sessions and fellow members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my name is Tony Ciampi. Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and some of his subordinate officers falsified four audio/video recordings and two taser gun data ports in order to conceal their torture of me and to falsely incriminate me of a crime.

In 2008 I was charged with felony resisting arrest. Superior Court Judge Thang Barrett dismissed the case against me citing that the officers violated my Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights by unlawfully detaining me.

Judge Koh overturned Judge Barrett’s decision in a MSJ Order dismissing my case for all intensive purposes.

Judge Koh stated to you and the Senate Judiciary Committee that she decides every case on the law and the facts.

Judge Koh stated in her May 11, 2011 Order that I did not cite any case law in my opposition to the MSJ, yet I cited much state law relevant to and supporting my case including the case law used by Judge Barrett. (Links 1 & 2 at Bottom of Page)

Koh overturned the First unlawful detainment stating that the officers were justified due to officer safety and unsettled case law, however, the officers testified during the Preliminary examination that they detained me because they wanted to find out who I was, not because of officer safety.
(Links 2 & 3)

Mr. Sessions, during the February 11, 2010 Senate Hearing on Judicial Nominees you quoted one of Judge Koh’s writings in which she wrote, “quote, ‘Even when there is more diversity on the bench, minority judges still need to maintain the disguise of objectivity or else face challenges to their decisions.’ Close quote.”

(Link 4)

Judge Koh’s statements regarding my case:
April 21, 2011 Hearing and May 11, 2011 Decision (Link 3)

Judge Koh-Koh Sherman-Sherman Ciampi-Ciampi

Sherman April 21: “When Mr. Ciampi first comes out, (of the vehicle), he is quit animated. He is quit aggravated, for whatever reason.”

Koh April 21 “Well he is allowed to be, there is no City ordinance against sleeping in your car, wouldn’t that aggravate you?”

Sherman April 21: “When Mr. Ciampi first comes out, (of the vehicle), he is quit animated. He is quit aggravated, for whatever reason.”

Koh April 21: “Okay now that’s only after they tell him that they’re getting a tow-truck to remove his car for violating a city ordinance which doesn’t exist; right?”

Sherman April 21: “Yes.”

Koh April 21: “Right, but I would bet you that if you had gone to a judge and tried to get a warrant, at that point you couldn’t.”

Koh May 11, “The Court finds that Defendants were faced with an individual who had appeared unusually agitated since the beginning of the encounter.”

Koh April 21: “And when you watch the video, Mr. Ciampi seems very articulate and coherent. He’s trying to call his lawyer.”

Koh May 11: “ (The Court finds…an individual), “…who exhibited tensed and twitching muscles that could be consistent with use of a controlled substance.”

Koh April 21: He (Ciampi) seems awfully coherent and articulate I frankly don’t think the officers’ Testimony about the pupils is very credible they’re both kind of all over the map on that

Koh May 11: “Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on this claim, on grounds that Defendants had reasonable suspicion to justify a brief, investigatory detention of Plaintiff.”

Koh April 21: “There does appear to be a factual dispute As to whether the officers had reasonable suspicion that Mr. Ciampi was under the influence of a controlled substance.”

The disguise of objectivity revealed is revealed in Judge Koh’s contradictions.

Judge Koh stated during the Senate Hearing, “I think our rule of law would simply break down if everyone were to just insert their own personal biases, our system of justice and this Great Country exists because there is the rule of law which we all respect…. I have faithfully followed the rule of law and I would not um let bias or prejudice in anyway influence my decisions.”

Judge Koh eliminated my 14th Amend. claims stating that I was not a qualified expert, yet Judge Koh and Sherman, opposing counsel, both submit evidence in the exact same manner and format that Judge Koh forbids me to. (Links 1 & 3)

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS Argued November 10, 2008–Decided June No. 07-591. 25, 2009,

“A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure–or have an incentive–to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution.

“Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well. Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials. One commentator asserts that “[t]he legal community now concedes, with varying degrees of urgency, that our system produces erroneous convictions based on discredited forensics.” Metzger, Cheating the Constitution, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 475, 491 (2006)”

”Respondent asserts that we should find no Confrontation Clause violation in this case because petitioner had the ability to subpoena the analysts. But that power–whether pursuant to state law or the Compulsory Process Clause–is no substitute for the right of confrontation.”

If this were a criminal case, Judge Koh’s legal rational to dismiss my 14th Amend. claims would violate the 6th Amend. invalidating her rational and demonstrating the unconstitutionality of it regardless of whether it is being applied to a civil case or a criminal case.

On 12/21/10 Andrew Hinz of Taser International stated that the taser cameras that recorded the incident were sent to Taser International in 2008.

On 01/26/11 Andrew Hinz stated that the cameras and taser guns operated correctly and the data had not been tampered with.
When I pointed this out to Judge Koh, Andrew Hinz changed his statements that different cameras recorded the incident.
On 02/22/11 Andrew Hinz stated that the cameras he initially documented as the ones used during the incident had been destroyed. (Link 5)

Judge Koh accepted Hinz’s explanation that he wrote down the wrong numbers denying me the opportunity to examine Mr. Hinz during the trial in order to ferret out the truth.

Fifth graders who come up with the, “my dog ate my homework” as an excuse sounds more plausible than what Mr. Hinz has put forward, especially when taken into consideration that he is on record stating that no electrical current was emitted contradicting Burger’s activation report.

Defs. and Hinz claim that the probe in the fence was from Burger’s taser gun and thus no circuit was created. Burger’s activation report states that he discharged electricity for 2 seconds and Burger has stated that he felt the electricity from his own taser gun which must have occurred several seconds later.

The evidence contradicts Hinz’s expert analysis. (It should be noted that Burger shocked me for at least 20 seconds not the 2 seconds indicated in his report). Now you understand why DA Jeff Rosen refuses to provide me with the taser gun activation data that his crime lab downloaded.

Recently, I caught the City’s Attorney submitting falsified reports regarding the taser gun activation data in order to cover up two previously falsified report.
(Links 6, 7 & 8)

This is significant because it implicates both the police chief and Taser International’s representative Andrew Hinz. Mr. Hinz is on recorded stating that nothing is wrong with the taser gun data, yet we have six different reports containing six different sets of data.

Taser International wants to warehouse police videos nationwide,
The threat to undermine the American Justice System by allowing Taser International to warehouse evidence is unprecedented in the our history as a Nation given the events which have occurred in my case. To allow Taser International to have control of evidence in criminal cases would essentially eviscerate the due process clause.

The Evidence:

videos missing video footage, videos not in chronological order, destruction of original hard drives/original videos, refusal to retain the taser hard drive, admission of destruction of two taser probes, numerous editing flaws, etc….(Link 9)

The Santa Clara District Attorney’s office has not only not refuted any of my evidence, but their own crime lab appears to have corroborated the fact that the videos and taser gun activation data have been falsified, (missing taser video, frames of video improperly indexed and an unexplained reason why they did not download the taser gun activation data. (Link 10) (One can only assume that they are trying to protect Police Chief Dennis Burns, (Link 11), for he is well known and liked through out the area which I believe is a good part of the reason why I cannot obtain an attorney, the other being the falsified video footage which is completely out of context of what occurred. Interestingly, the DA had four audio/video recordings of the incident and one very damning to my case, yet the DA did not show Judge Barrett any of the videos.

It should be noted that the DA’s crime lab has been the focus of criticism from your committee in the past and has deliberately under investigated evidence in other cases. The crime lab has a forensic copy of the taser hard drive, yet Rosen refuses to attempt to recover the original unadulterated videos.

Judge Koh and DA Jeff Rosen,have not been able to refute any of my evidence. The AG (Gerald Engler), DOJ(Loretta King) and FBI refuse to investigate even though they cannot refute my evidence. I imagine that they do not want any negative repercussions to happen to Taser International.

They could recover the original taser videos from a hard drive still in possession of the PAPD, but they better hurry for the PAPD has been using it for something else overwriting the original downloads.

I had Judge Fogel for a year. As soon as Judge Koh is appointed to the bench, my case is transferred to her yet she took over the caseload of another judge, not Judge Fogel.

I learned that Judge Koh worked with PA IPA Michael Gennaco in the Dept. of Justice. Michael Gennaco has been obstructing the ascertainment of truth from the beginning of my case. He reports directly to Chief Burns, who as it turns out, is the specific Defendant who submitted the falsified taser gun data. (Link 12) Palo Alto’s current Mayor, Sid Espinoza, has also worked in the Dept. of Justice.

I asked judge Koh to recuse herself due to this conflict of interest, she refused. (Link 13) Now I understand why.

Mr. Sessions, you stated, “if a person appearing before the bench feels the judge’s personal experiences, their ethnic background, their religion, their political philosophy causes them not to listen fairly to their case, not to fairly find the facts in their case, wouldn’t you agree that the whole system is in jeopardy, actually you just said the system would be in jeopardy?”

To which Judge Koh replied, “I agree with you.”

Mr Sessions you stated during the Senate Heraing that, The whole American Legal System I guess Judge (Kratt), the whole cross-examination idea, things we were taught in law school is to me based on a belief that the truth is ascertainable there is some objectivity and the process is to try to bring the truth out and judge’s rule is to allow this process to occur in a fair and objective way and then to honestly and objectively apply those truthfully found facts to the law, would you agree with that?

Judge Koh replied, “Yes Senator Sessions, I agree whole heartedly, one-hundred percent.”

Everything that the justice system has done in my case, including this court has been to suppress the truth.

Judge Koh stated during her Senate Hearing, “Our system of justice requires it. Litigants, parties, counsel, are entitled to objectivity and I think our rule of law would simply break down if everyone were to just insert their own personal biases our system of justice and this Great Country exists because there is the rule of law which we all respect”

Judge Koh’s Order dismissing my case has the effect of endorsing and legitimizing the use of falsified videos and taser gun data by the Palo Alto Police and Law Enforcement in general in order to falsely incriminate citizens of crimes.

Given what the PAPD has pulled off, I live in a constant state of fear, terrorized, by the potential of the PAPD perpetrating the same or worse acts in the future by framing me for a crime of which Police Chief Dennis Burns attempted to do. This threat will not disappear until they are held accountable.

By denying me the opportunity to present my evidence Judge Koh is essentially victimizing me for attempting to hold the PAPD accountable for the outrageous violations they have committed against me. I have learned that I am not the first person persecuted by the PAPD and I will not be the last

I believe that it is of utmost importance that the Senate Judiciary Committee initiate hearings to address the systemic flaws in our justice system which have been exposed through my case, “Neighborly Nepotism,” and “Cultural Bias,” by law enforcement for law enforcement at the expense of our freedoms is destroying what it means to be the United States of America.

I am so sure of the evidence, that I have offered to drop my lawsuit if the Defendants can just disprove one piece of it. (Link 14)


1) Order:
2) Clarification:*XqqjaCQPgrAPCuel37vw
3) Reconsideration:
4) Senate:
5) Taser International:
6) Sherman:
7) Missing taser:
8) Stutchman:
9) Edited videos:
10) DA:
11) Burns:*RaauGsfsVhtKTVQ
12) Gennaco*8PsS5v0EDul3DnZZA
13) Recusal*q6nRR0wyiw
14) Settlement


Letter to Senate:


Tony Ciampi