Which Judge Judged Correctly?

4th Amendment

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:


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.

Tony Ciampi

Plaintiffs request for clarification

Update: May 19th, 2011

Ferguson, Praet & Sharman – Objections to Plaintiff’s Motion

Update: May 20th, 2011

Lucy Koh’s Denial of Clarification Order

Update: May 23rd, 2011

Motion for reconsideration

Breaking News – Federal Judge Lucy Koh Grants Partial Victory’s on Both Sides in Ciampi Case

Scales of Justice

In an email received from Mr. Ciampi’s early this morning his reaction to ruling is as follows……

“[I]Simply the lack of money denied me justice because I could not buy an expert.  The Judge granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and most of the state claims.

In her decision Judge Koh neglected to cite my testimony that Def. Wagner stated I was detained for sleeping, or even that Wagner actually is heard stating that on the MAV recording,

She neglected to consider the falsified taser gun activation data which was the main charge against sherman in the Motion for Sanctions.”

Highlights of Federal Judge Koh’s ruling:

Assault and Battery (against Defendants Temores, Burger, Wagner, and the City)


“The Court has found that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Defendants Burger, Temores, and Wagner used reasonable force in detaining Plaintiff. Although qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s federal claim for excessive force, it does not bar his state law claim for battery. See Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (“California denies immunity to police officers who use excessive force in arresting a suspect.”)……

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress


“Defendants have offered no other grounds for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s IIED claim. For these reasons, the Court must DENY summary adjudication of this claim as to Defendants Temores, Wagner, Burger, and the City of Palo Alto. The motion is GRANTED as to the remaining Defendants.”



“Because the Court has found triable issues of fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by Defendants Temores, Wagner, and Burger, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s negligence claim against these Defendants and the City
must be denied.”

Defamation (against Defendants Burns, Johnson, Ryan, Temores, and the City)

Note, “Defendants do not dispute that some of the alleged statements may have been false.”


“Accordingly, the Court agrees that § 821.6 grants Defendants immunity from Plaintiff’s defamation claim and GRANTS
summary adjudication on this issue in favor of Defendants.”

False Arrest and False Imprisonment (against Defendants Temores, Burger, Wagner, and the City)


“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments do not establish a claim for false imprisonment, and the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of this claim.”


Order Granting In Part

PAPD Officer Parham Runs a Stop Sign and The Making of a PAPD Complaint

Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006

PAPD officer Luis Parham

This feature article will be continually up-dated.   So please check back with us periodically as we expose the “Naked Truth”.

Synopsis: A community member riding a bicycle complained that two PAPD officers had driven an unmarked car past him in excess of the speed limit and made a “fast rolling stop” through a stop sign. He asserted that when he confronted the two officers at the coffee shop where they stopped, they both admitted their excessive speed and stated that they were in a hurry to get to a meeting.

The complainant averred that he was very sensitive about speeding because he frequently rides his bicycle. One of the officers paused to talk to the complainant in the parking lot of the coffee shop while the other officer went into the shop. When he came out, the complainant was still talking to the partner officer. Later that day, the complainant phoned a complaint into the Department.

Recommendation: The IPA reviewed the interviews of the complainant and the two involved officers in this case. There were no audio or video recordings of the incident. While there were a few uninvolved civilian witnesses in the coffee shop parking lot who evidently stopped to watch the conversation between the complainant and the officers, none were identified at the time.

This is understandable since the officers did not then know that the encounter would engender an administrative investigation. The case presents two starkly different views of the facts. The complainant said the car “flew past” him and “blew” the stop sign. The officers said they drove at a normal rate, did not ignore the stop sign, and that they did not see the complainant or his bicycle anywhere along the route.

The complainant saw a brown car. The officers say they were driving a red car. The officers said they were in no hurry to get to their meeting. The complainant said they both admitted to being in a hurry. The complainant said he had a “frank discussion” with one of the officers. The officers described him as very angry, spitting, and “going off.”

During his conversation with the officers, the complainant told the officers that they had “almost run him over.” The complainant did not, however, make any mention of direct danger to himself during his Internal Affairs interview or in his complaint call to the Department.

We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.

Resolution/Corrective Action:

The Department concluded that the complaint is not sustained. In light of the diametrically opposed nature of the statements and the fact that there is no other ready source of evidence that can be explored in addition to the statements of the three participants, the IPA recommends that it would be more appropriate to categorize this complaint as unresolved.

Update: May 10th, 2011

There are many aspects concerning this complaint which are troubling.  First, it’s classification. Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006.  Were not sure if this is a reverse complaint about me or them…..LOL

None of these officers where rude.  In fact, Jesus Panada was very friendly and talkative when approached and apologized for his partner running the stop sign.  He stated, ‘were human too and we make mistakes’. Officer Jesus Panada was Parham’s passenger.

Mr. Miller, from the Office of Independent Review, on the other hand, characterized the events of this complaint and conversation as “confrontational”.  I was quick to point out that our conversation was consensual but truthful.

There was never a harsh word exchanged that would have even come remotely close to characterizing me by both officers as being “very angry, spitting, and “going off.”  One would think, such behavior would warrant, at the very least, a verbal warning for disturbing the peace.

When I first read the report, I just laughed but then realized both these officers were dishonest in their statements to internal affairs.

Mr. Miller along with Mr. Michael Genanco, were both hired by the city of Palo Alto to act as liaisons and police auditors to investigate police citizen complaints for their thoroughness and timeliness.

As I mentioned to Mr. Miller yesterday that I had made repeated phone calls,  follow-up emails, not only to the head of the Internal Affairs investigative team,  Lt. Sandra Brown, but,  Chief Dennis Burns, Doug Keith along with a presentation to city council which included the distribution and copy of the original complaint.

I never heard back from anyone.  So you can imagine, my reaction to one of Mr. Miller’s conclusions;


Published on March 7th, 2011.

“We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.”

Next the complaint timeline so stay tuned….

Update: May 11th, 2011

Will the California Public Records Act divulge the “Naked Truth”, as to the actual swiftness and handling of this complaint?

California Public Records Act Government Code Section 6250 – http://1.usa.gov/mlAwD1


To: Beth Minor” <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org, “Sandra Brown” <Sandra.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org, “Dennis Burns” <Dennis.Burns@CityofPaloAlto.org>


The California Public Records Request Greetings!

Re: Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006

Please produce all of the following information on the above referenced citizen complaint.


  • Date PAPD received complaint.
  • Date PAPD imitated investigation.
  • Date PAPD completed investigation.
  • Date PAPD reviewed it’s investigation findings / analysis with complainant.
  • Date PAPD reviewed it’s investigation findings / analysis with IPA
  • Dates of all follow-ups initiated by PAPD with complainant.
  • Dates of all conversations initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.
  • Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.
  • Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with complainant.
  • Dates of all conversation i.e. phone calls initiated by PAPD with comlaintant

Must be received by: March 23rd, 2011 –  6255 of the Government code

The agency must provide assistance

by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access. (§ 6253.1)

see: Government Code & 6253 re time limits for said disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

See: Writings as defined in California Public Records Section 6252(f) and Evidence Code & 250.

If you believe I am not entitled to the requested records I am requesting that you justify your refusal within (ten) days in writing under & 6255 of the Government code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me.

In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the court held that “The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate “clear overbalance” on the side of confidentiality.”

Please provide any additional legal authority you would like me to be aware of re this request . Please feel free to contact me to discuss this request if you have any questions or concerns.



Update: May 14th, 2011

Department Complaints / Internal Affairs Investigations/ IPA Process Highlights Explained



  • In person
  • By email on the Police Department’s website.
  • By telephone
  • [OIR] Through the Office of Independent Review
  • Internal timeline of 30 days to complete
  • Chief sign off
  • Complaint goes back to Lt. Sandra Brown
  • Copy is sent to OIR[Office of Independent Review] for their review.
  • Conference regarding the investigation / Lt. Sandra Brown – OIR
  • Complainant is then notified of the disposition.

Material source: Minutes from behind closed doors secret meetings.


Editor’s note: Public and Press are forbidden from attending.

Update May 24th, 2011 – Results of California Public Records Request

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: CPRA – Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006
From: “Brown, Sandra” <Sandra.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 3:28 pm
To: <editor@paloaltofreepress.com>
Cc: <molly.stunp@cityofpaloalto.org>;, “Minor, Beth”
Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>, “Teixeira, Barbara”

Good Morning Mark,

A. Date PAPD received complaint.

June 18, 2010

B. Date PAPD initiated investigation.

June 25, 2010

C.Date PAPD completed investigation.

August 30, 2010

D. Date PAPD reviewed its investigation findings / analysis with complainant.

October 14, 2010  (This claim is in dispute should read None)

E. Date PAPD reviewed its investigation findings / analysis with IPA

December 10, 2010 – Mailed Copy to IPA January 3, 2011

F. Dates of all follow-ups initiated by PAPD with complainant.


G. Dates of all conversations initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.


H. Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with IPA on citizen complaint.


I. Dates of all emails initiated by PAPD with complainant.


J. Dates of all conversation i.e. phone calls initiated by PAPD with complainant


Thank you,
Lieutenant Sandra C. Brown
Personnel & Training
Palo Alto Police Department
Phone:  (650) 329-2394
Voice:   (650) 617-3100 x2394

As noted in my original request. CPRA laws mandate responses to be received within 10 days of the initial request. I’m please to report this request was received ahead of schedule.

However, the answers to my request, are in fact candid and quite revealing far different from what was originally reported to city council leadership by the head of the PAPD’s Internal Affairs unit Lt. Sandra Brown and the Independent Police Auditors team of Michael Genanco contracted by the city of Palo Alto to insure police complaint protocols are adhered to as noted above.

This report as we all know, was collaboratively prepared by the PAPD’s Internal Affairs unit and the Independent Police Auditors team of Michael Genanco which seems to be seriously flawed and may in fact contain elements of fraud.

Keep in mind both agency’s are high skilled and trained in the art of deception.

Let’s regress for a moment and look back at the concluding remarks of Genanco’s highly skilled team of lawyers and compare how this actually measures up with the California Public Records request.

“We also note that Internal Affairs arranged for a formal interview of the complainant on the same day that he phoned his complaint in to the Department and that this complaint investigation was completed in less than a month. We hope the Department can emulate this commendable swiftness with complaints of this type in the future.”

Five Elements of Fraud – http://bit.ly/iXzKR0

1. First the person must make a false claim.

The reporting party Lt. Sandra Brown chief of the Internal Affairs unit knew that the complaint was not completed in less then 30 days as everyone was lead to be beleive, through the discovery of a CPRA thus paving the way to revealing their web of sophisticated deception.

2. Then they must know that the information they are submitting is wrong.

Both parties in this case knew the information was in fact wrongfully submitted and conspired to present misinformation to city council. None of the outlined citizen complaint protocols or processes were adhered to as noted above. (see Department Complaints / Internal Affairs Investigations/IPA Process Highlights Explained). Checks and balances were completely ignored and unconfirmed.

3. The person using the information has to have the intent to commit fraud.

Both parties were well equipped with a complete and thorough understanding of citizen complaint protocol guidelines.

These guideline were woefully neglected with the full knowledge and understanding by both reporting parties that the information was misrepresented. There joint actions demonstrate a total systemic quality failure for the sole purpose and intent of reporting expediency. “commendable swiftness”

4. The payout must be based on thinking the documents are truthful.

Messages were left with several city council members to determine whether or not members were in fact reading the reports submitted by the Genanco team of Lawyers. Council member Greg Schmid was the only person to respond.

We both agreed on the absence of any documented timelines as to when the citizen complaints were initiated and the time in which it was finalized. I also pointed out the misleading classification of this complaint as “unfounded” when it should have been classified and noted in the report, as “unresolved”.

5. There must be some damage, such as a monetary loss.

The actual losses to the city of Palo Alto in this case, is payment for services which were not truthfully rendered and may in fact only be the tip of the iceberg.

The spinning of this sophisticated web of deceit can be further highlighted and illustrated by the sheer facts as revealed, that both parties were relying on no particular person to question the validity of reports submitted by Genanco and his team of attorneys. Perhaps they were depending on getting away with the following disguise.

Plausible deniability

Refers to the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs, and the lower rungs are often inaccessible, meaning confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.

In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a “powerful player” or actor to avoid “blowback” by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay “clean” and denounce advertisements that use unethical approaches or innuendo based on opposition research.

More generally, “plausible deniability” can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. (As to the original submitted police auditors reports – Comment added.)

Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

Plausible deniability is a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases.

In civil cases, the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true.


For the moment, We will leave it up to our readers and to a jury of their peers to determine if in fact fraud was committed based on evidence submitted. But as it stands, we beleive community fraud has been committed and those responsible should be held accountable short of jail time or disbarment.

The Two ROI’s of Business – One for Bean Counters and One for People with the Gift of Gab

The Two Different ROI’s:

The Two Different ROI’s:

Company Bean Counter Definition – Return on Investment

Company Marketing Manager Definition – Relationships, Opening Doors and Influence.

As a Business Owner you must understand and know when and how use the two different ROI’s to grow your business.

The Company Bean Counter probably thinks ROI means the following: A formula that allows the Company Bean Counter to analyze the efficiency of an investment or allows the Company Bean Counter to analyze and compare the efficiency of different investments.

ROI = (Gain from Investment – Cost of Investment)

Cost of Investment

Example: Frank the contractor has $100 to either buy a new power saw or a new drill. Frank cannot buy both tools at this time. He’s not sure which tool to buy so he makes the following analysis:

Buy Power Saw for $100 Assumption: If Frank buys a new power saw he will reduce the time necessary to complete the kitchen remodel he is working on by 8 hours at an hourly cost saving of $50/hour.

Gain from Investment = (8 hours x $50/hour) =$400

Cost of Investment = $100

ROI on Purchase of New Saw = $400 – $100 = $300 = 3

$100 $100

Buy New Drill for $100 Assumption: If Frank buys a new drill he will reduce the time necessary to complete the kitchen remodel he is working on by 6 hours at an hourly cost saving of $50/hour.

Gain from Investment = (6 hours x $50/hour) =$300

Cost of Investment = $100

ROI on Purchase of New Drill = $300 – $100 = $200 = 2

$100 $100

ROI on New Saw is 3 and ROI on New Drill is 2. Since ROI on New Saw is greater than ROI of New Drill, Frank Decides to buy the new saw. Way to go Frankie you bean counter contractor! Note: If your ROI is a negative number don’t be bonehead and make the investment!

The Company Marketing Manager probably thinks ROI means the following: In order for the company to make sales the company must first build relationships with prospective clients, these relationship in turn allow the company to open doors for the sales team which in turn influences the potential client to become a paying customer.

Relationships, Opening Doors and Influence takes time to build. Most businesses use a combination of old school marketing efforts (print ad – biz cards, flyers, catalogs, yellow page ads, mailings and newspaper advertisements) and many are now capitalizing on social media tools (websites, blogs, Facebook Business Pages, Tweeting, Yelp, Google Biz Profiles and many others) to adapt to the changing world.

With consumers spending more and more time on social media sites and using smart phones (phone that can access the internet) to search for local businesses it is necessary for almost all businesses to integrate social media in to their marketing efforts or face the grim outcome of getting run over by a competitor who uses social media.

Breaking News-Tony Ciampi receives much sought after MAV Tazer recordings.

Serious questions remain.

PAPD MAV Tazer Recordings

  • Why did it take a three year long legal battle for the PAPD to finally release the original MAV (Mobile Audio Visual) videos?
  • Why did chief leading attorney Donald Larkin battle to keep it secret?
  • Why didn’t the Department of Justice offer any assistance to Mr. Ciampi?
  • Why did it require a direct order from a sitting federal judge to move the city attorney to produce the original MAV recordings?
  • Why did the Santa Clara County DA’s office [Jeff Rosen] offer no assistance?

So many questions remain unanswered…… Paloaltofreepress.com will continue to push for the truth objectively despite our being ordered Blacklisted.