For those of you who are following the Ciampi v. Palo Alto case you are most likely aware that the court granted Summary Judgment to dismiss the 4th and 14th Amendment violations of my complaint, overruling Judge Thang Barrett’s decision that Defendants violated my 4th Amendment rights.
So the question is, which judge is correct, Judge Koh or Judge Barrett? How is it possible that one judge is correct and the other judge in incorrect? Is this how the laws and the Constitution are created and enforced in the American Justice system, at the whims of whoever is at the reigns of any particular case?
Judge Koh has refused to allow me to present evidence which would give rise to my 14th amendment claims citing that I am not an expert. The evidence she refuses to allow me to present are specific images on the very videos that the Defendants have submitted to the court. Does it take an expert to point of a “shoe” on a video and compare that shoe to another video? If it does, I would think that all jurors would need to experts in video imagery.
I have requested that the court clarify this seemingly contradictory presentation of evidence, Defendants are permitted to present evidence, and comment on the images in that evidence, yet Plaintiff is not given permission?
Court Document: 159:
PLAINTIFF REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF PORTIONS OF THE COURT’S ORDER Re: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO EACH PARTY AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Plaintiff intends to submit the appropriate appeal and or reconsideration of the court’s Order Granting In Part…Motion For Summary Judgment, Court Doc. 155.
According to the FRCiv.P 56 (a) “…The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.”
The court stated a lengthy reason for granting the particular parts for granting Motion for Judgment, however there is some confusion to Plaintiff on the reasoning of the court in coming to its findings and decisions.
Therefore Plaintiff requests the court clarify some of the aspects of its findings and decisions so that Plaintff can properly address the courts finding in an appropriate appeal and or reconsideration.
The court stated “[T]he district court does not assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a genuine factual issue for trial.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559-560 (2006),” pg. 8 lines 22-24 of Court Doc. 155.
Pg. 21 lines 3 through 10 of Court Doc. 155 the court found that Plaintiff was unusually agitated since the beginning of the encounter, who exhibited tensed and twitching muscles that could be consistent with use of a controlled substance and who had “fresh and old” sores on his arms that appeared similar to sores Defendants had observed on individuals suspected of illegal drug use. Sherman Dec. Ex. 2 at 30, 33, 38; id. Ex. 21 9. Plaintiff does not controvert these facts, but claims that Defendants drew an incorrect inference from them.”
a) Plaintiff was not agitated from the beginning of the encounter, so how does the court come to that conclusion?, see Def. Temores’ MAV video from the 10:06:35 mark to the 10:08:40 mark. During this time Def. Wagner stated numerous times that Plt. was violating a sleeping ordinance whose act intentionally provoked and antagonized Plaintiff and which is and of itself a disputed fact actually supported by Def. Burger’s MAV recording in which Def. Wagner is heard stating that Plaintiff is violating a “SLEEPING ORDINANCE” not an overnight parking ordinance.
b) Plaintiff disputes that he was twitching his muscles, so how does the court come to the conclusion that Plaintiff was twitching his muscles, given the courts findings on pg. 24 lines 12 through 24 which document that Plaintiff was calm and speaking coherently? Additionally, even Temores’ MAV video demonstrates that Plaintiff was not twitching his muscles.
c) Additionally, how does the court conclude that the sores on Plaintiff Ciampi’s arms are an undisputed fact giving rise to reasonable suspicion when the Defs. are not experts in diagnosing skin conditions?
The court found that, “Because the police had not lawfully detained Plaintiff’s van prior to the attempted extraction,” pg. 18 lines 9-10 of Court Document 155.
The court found that, “Nonetheless, the Court agrees that the “weighty interest in officer safety” during vehicle stops, the lesser protection accorded to readily mobile vehicles, and the unsettled scope of case law on unlawful ruses, taken together, is sufficient to demonstrate that the law was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s seizure, pg. 18 lines 13-16 of Court Document 155.
Plaintiff cannot find any facts in the court’s decision or the Defs. Mot. for Summ. Judg supporting the Defendants’ contention of an issue with “officer safety” which the court relies upon to grant Defs. Mot. For Summ. Judg. regarding Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights.
Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the court point to the non-disputable facts which give rise to officer safety. As Plaintiff pointed out during the April 21, 2011 hearing, Defendants’ contradict their contention that “officer safety” arose when Plaintiff shut the door to his vehicle and then stating that Plaintiff should have shut the door or walk away from the officers, lines 1-4 of pg. 4 of Court Doc. 141.
The court found that, “Plaintiff has not presented any case law suggesting that the law on this issue was clearly established,” lines 22-23 of Court Doc. 155.
Plaintiff provided numerous case law regarding this issue, pages 10-12 of Court Doc.132 with specific cases including Boyd v. United States, Rios v. United States, Bumper v. North Carolina and Katz v. United States. Plaintiff requests that the court demonstrate how these cases do not apply by not being established prior to the March 15, 2008 incident as the court has stated.
The court concluded that, “However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not produced admissible expert testimony suggesting that Defendants altered or tampered with the MAV or Taser recordings.,” lines 10-11 of pg. 13 of Court Doc 155. Furthermore the court found that Plaintiff does not have the expertise to submit photographic evidence to support Plaintiff’s allegations of tampering or even point out missing data from documents submitted to the court by the Defendants, pages 11-12 of Court Doc. 155.
With that said Plaintiff submitted Exhibit 512-11 which are photographs of the incident taken by Def. Temores’ MAV and Taser camera. Plaintiff points out to the court a shoe and foot behind Plaintiff in said exhibit.
Plaintiff requests that the court clarify what qualifications are necessary for a party or witness to point out images on photographs submitted by Defendants in order to assert facts and or dispute of facts.
Plaintiff pointed out missing data from the taser gun activation data that Defendants submitted to the court, Exhibit 522 and specifically 522-15 and 522-16.
The court has determined that Plaintiff is not qualified to present this evidence demonstrating a dispute of facts giving rise to the falsification of the taser gun activation data. Plaintiff requests that the court cite what are the qualifications necessary for a witness or party to point out missing taser gun activation data to the court that is documented on the Defendants’ own Exhibits in order for it to be admissible.
Plaintiff points out that Def. Burger confirms with the paramedics that four taser probes were discharged during the incident as documented on Defendant Burger’s MAV recording. Plaintiff points out Defendants document and secure a taser probe lodged in the fence and one on the sidewalk into evidence yet failed to document and secure the taser probe that Def. Burger retrieves from Def. Temores’ patrol car as documented on Defs.’ Burger’s and Temores’ MAV recordings provided to this court by Defendants and exhibits 47 of Court Doc. 55; 162, 163 and 166 of court doc. 109.
Defendants’ acknowledge destroying two taser probes, a taser cartridge, taser wires and AFIDS. Plaintiff requests that the court specify the qualifications necessary to point to taser probes and other images in photographs submitted as evidence in order to be accepted as evidence in order to give rise to a disputed fact.
Plaintiff requests the court specify the qualifications necessary to point to dialog in an audio recording in order for the court to accept that dialog giving rise to a disputed fact. Gregg Stutchman cites the Critical Review, Waveform Analysis and Time Code Analysis in his report. Plaintiff attaches Stutchman’s Declaration to this submission.
Update: May 19th, 2011
Update: May 20th, 2011
Update: May 23rd, 2011