Judge Lucy Koh’s Decision Condones the Use of Falsified Evidence

Is Judge Lucy Koh Burning the U.S. Constitution?

Koh denies Ciampi’s request to reconsider her order to dismiss Ciampi’s lawsuit.


Judge Lucy Koh states that the Palo Alto Police can use Falsified Videos and other evidence in order to wrongfully incriminate citizens of a crime without being challenged by the citizens who lack the resources to hire experts.

Judge Lucy Koh states the police can enter photographs into evidence that have been falsified but citizens are not allowed to point out the editing flaws indicating that the photographs have been falsified.

Judge Lucy Koh states that it is lawful for police departments to destroy evidence including exculpatory evidence that is relevant to a criminal case. In the Ciampi case that would include but not be limited to a taser cartridge, taser probes, taser cameras, etc….

Federal District Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Palo Alto Police Officers violated Ciampi’s 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet dismissed Ciampi’s lawsuit because of an issue of officer safety and unsettled case law.

In Ciampi’s Motion for Leave for Reconsideration, Ciampi pointed out that the officers testified that they did not detain Plaintiff Ciampi because of “Officer Safety, but because they wanted to find out who Ciampi was, Pg. 5 line 28 and pg. 6 lines 1 through 23 of Court Doc. 163.


Additionally, Ciampi provided substantial case law that had been settled before the March 15, 2008 incident, including but not limited to: Boyd v. United States, Rios v. United States Bumper v. North Carolina and Katz v. United States just to name a few of the more than twenty cited.


Despite proving Koh wrong, Judge Koh refuses to reverse her order which is not substantiated by the law or the facts.



Red Light Tickets-Citizen Safety or a Scam?

Red Light Camera Scam?

Red Light cameras don’t reduce traffic accidents.

1) You don’t have to pay a fine if the red light ticket did not capture your photograph, a photograph of the license plate is not sufficient.

2) You don’t have to identify the driver of your car if someone else was driving your car when nabbed by the light.

3) Police will try to trick motorists into paying by sending fictitious tickets that don’t actually cite a court or court’s address. Don’t pay, by any other name that would be defined as extortion.

4) You don’t have to pay the fine if the yellow light was a shorter duration than specified by CalTrans’ Traffic Manual. That’s 3.6 seconds for a 35MPH zone. I don’t’ know about you, but it appears to me that the red light intersections in Menlo Park are shorter than 3.6 seconds.

According to data compiled at http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

Know your rights, don’t fall victim to a government run amok for the sake of paying their salaries.

Referred to website, RED LIGHT CAMERAS, by a California Police Officer who stated the Red Light Tickets are Unconstitutional.

A Closer Look At – Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons

Department of Justice

About this report.  This study looked at injuries that occur to law enforcement officers and citizens during use-of-force events. Most applications of force are minimal, with officers using their hands, arms or bodies to push or pull against a suspect to gain control.
Officers are also trained to use various other force techniques and weapons to overcome resistance.

These include less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, batons or conducted energy devices (CEDs) such as Tasers. They can also use firearms to defend themselves or others against threats of death or serious bodily injuries. What did the researchers find? This study found that when officers used force, injury rates to citizens ranged from 17 to 64 percent, depending on the agency, while officer injury rates ranged from 10 to 20 percent.

Most injuries involve minor bruises, strains and abrasions. The study’s most significant finding is that, while results were not uniform across all agencies, the use of pepper spray and CEDs can significantly reduce injuries to suspects and the use of CEDs can decrease injuries to officers. The researchers assert that all injuries must be taken seriously.

When police in a democracy use force and injury results, concern about police abuse arises, lawsuits often follow and the reputation of the police is threatened. Injuries also cost money in medical bills for indigent suspects, workers’ compensation claims for injured officers or damages paid out in legal settlements or judgments. What were the study’s limitations? In many cases, agency supplied injury data did not allow for a detailed analysis of the nature or seriousness of the injuries reported.

DOJ Tazer Report May 2011

The City Of Palo Alto’s Closed Door Police Meetings – Kennedy Speech Conspiracy Secret Societies

Secrecy is weakness

“In the 21st Century, democracy demands an innovative approach to policy making – an approach built on transparency, participation, and collaboration. These foundational qualities are the keys to creating a more effective government that taps the creativity and diversity of an entire nation to generate solutions to the challenges we face.”

Implementing the President’s Memorandum on Open Government –


“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings”.

“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

“Tonight, I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger.

The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years.

Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

“Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. (…)

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

“Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. (…)

“It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

“Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply ‘give the public what it wants’ — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

“This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local.

It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission.

And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy


By Popular Demand 1 August, 2010 @ 7:18 by Mark Petersen-Perez