The team headed up by Michael Gennaco of the County of Los Angeles, Office of Independent Review has been contracted by the city of Fullerton, California to investigate the beating of Kelly Thomas.
Phone calls to Fullerton city management and emails to Mr. Gennaco as to the scope of their investigation have gone unanswered.
Mr. Gennaco is no stranger to Palo Alto he and his team of highly skilled and articulate attorneys are contracted with the city and serve as independent police auditors.
We believe, Mr. Gennaco based on his history of favorable police investigation outcomes here in Palo Alto will no doubt conclude the Fullerton police department acted within police policy in this tragic beating and will now look for data which supports his conclusions.
We will continue to up-date as new information becomes available.
For more information see related story: Schizophrenia-What if this was your son or daughter? http://bit.ly/o40BjF
According to the research in the book link above, SunScreen does not protect the skin. Sunscreen (Sun Tan lotion) actually increases the chances of cancer.
Do the drug, chemical and cosmetic companies really have our best interests at heart ? Does the FDA really test all the chemicals, drugs and chemicals that it approves ? No. It only reviews the testing done by Corporations seeking its approval.
The book in the link above asserts that SunScreen does not work. In fact, by suppressing the sunburn redness, sunscreen creates the illusion that you can stay in the sun longer. The longer exposure to InfraRed, UltraViolet A,B,C results in all kinds of bad news, aging, drying, moles, general skin damage and cancer.
Best advice, wear a hat and long sleeves, limit sun exposure, avoid burns altogether and don’t put sunscreen on. The chemicals from sunscreen are toxic to you and especially to the environment, the sea, fish, coral. Sunscreen contains well known Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals leading to hormonal, metabolism and sexual organ dysfunction in mammals and fish.
— Possibly the largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector in human history, is about to begin. The federal government will be bulk-selling the massive portfolio of foreclosed homes now owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors — vulture funds.
(Private citizens are excluded from the sales. You lose.)
These homes, which are now the property of the U.S. government, which means U.S. citizens collectively, are going to be sold to private investor conglomerates at extraordinarily large discounts to real value.
(The “private investor conglomerates” will include Goldman Sachs and Wall Street partners and their various ‘shell corporations, LLCs, Management & Marketing companies, Real Estate Investment Trusts REITs, all generallly known as Vulture Funds.)
High ranking Federal employees of FHA, HUD, FNMA FHFA, FHLMC, will become the designated managers, granted essentially ‘inside information’ and control of many of the ‘Marketing and Management Companies which will be formed to acquire these properties at deep discounts from their already depressed values.
The Press and Federal Government will characterize the Billion Dollar transactions as – efforts to ‘stabilize neighborhoods and increase affordable housing and rentals for the children, the economically displaced and less fortunate.’
Translation – the Vulture Funds and foreign Bottom Feeders, will receive favorable below market pricing and financing on the houses, apartments and condos of US citizens, then the Vultures will rent this ‘US property’ back to American citizens at market rates and keep all the income and profits.
US citizens will be ripped off again and this time, the very land under their feet will be stolen and owned by Banks, Wall Street and foreign financiers. Our congressmen, Senators and President are already practicing the story.
They will tell us they fought hard to develop, write and negotiate these ‘programs’ and ‘deals.’ The truth is that Wall Street firms and Vulture investors wrote these programs and rules 3 years ago and they’ve been waiting since 2008 to get their hands on all this land.
Now the financiers are lobbying and bribing congress to seal the deal. All that’s left to be done is the propaganda campaign to ‘save the children’s homes.’ If you fell for, “too big to fail,” you’ll love the, “housing rescue.”
More Fun Than Bowling a Palo Alto Adult Co-Ed Softball Team won the Spring League D+ Championship game this past Tuesday, August 9th at Greer Park in Palo Alto.
More Fun Than Bowling played Da Beer’s a team that More Fun Than Bowling had faced twice early in the season (the two games were split between More Fun Than Bowling and Da Beers. Both teams entered the championship game with 11-1 records.
Final Score of the Championship game was 14-6 with both teams receiving bright yellow tee shirts for their efforts.
This morning’s testimony and arguments in this case is being presented by attorney John F. Baumgardner representing Ex-PA firefighter Andrew Jentzsch with the hope that his earlier guilty plea should be withdrawn.
The motion is being heard in department 88 of the Superior count building by Superior court judge Douglas K. Southhard located in Palo Alto.
Thus far Gary Goodman, Andrew’s Jentzsch former public defender has been questioned rather extensively by Mr. Jentzsch attorney as to weather or not Mr. Jentzsch clearly understood the charges filed against him.
Mr. Jentzsch contends he was not properly advised of all his legal options.
In Mr. Jentzsch motion request presented and recorded to the court, it states; “Due to the ineffective advice given by council, [Santa Clara county public defender Gary Goodman] he entered his plea, defendant [Andrew Jentzsch] does not beleive he had reasonably sufficient time with access to his then attorney [Santa Clara County Public Defender Gary Goodman] to discuses his case prior to entering his plea of guilty.”
Court proceeding will resume at 2:00pm today ending with Palo Alto city attorney Donald Larkin’s testimony. We will continue to up-date with new developments. Please stay tuned…..
Those were the words issued from the bench this afternoon by Superior Judge Douglas K. Southhard. In his ruling judge Southhard felt there was not enough compelling reasons to grant a withdrawal on an earlier plea of guilty.
Although he commended counsel for the defense for his articulate summary [Motion to Withdraw Plea] of case law in his brief submitted to the court. However, absent in their defense, were expert witnesses called to testify as to any emotional duress or the state of mine of Mr. Jentzsch. A key component argued.
Mr. Jentzsch contented he felt rushed through the legal process by his former public defense attorney Gary Goodman to just take the deal being offered by the prosecution. In Mr. Jentzsch declaration to the court, he stated, “Goodman told me the deal was a no brainier.”
Judge Southhard concluded by wrapping up a few sentencing procedures which is scheduled to occur sometime in September.
He also noted in his final comments that the evidence submitted just did not rise to the level where he felt that the motion should be granted. He felt Mr. Jentzsch was only feeling and experiencing what he described as “buyers remorse” to the earlier plea deal.
See related story: Ex-Palo Alto Fire Fighter Andrew Jentzsch sounds the 911 Fire Alarm http://bit.ly/itPF9P
In April of this year, when Molly Stump was chosen as Palo Alto’s new city attorney, we were encouraged that the inherited local governmental process of decisions made behind closed doors would change. Ms Stump professed to be in favor of open and transparent government.
We are still waiting for signs that her perspective has gone viral within the rest of Palo Alto’s city government. The inherited manner of doing business within government (AND in business) involves small groups of individuals attending a series of meetings to come to a determination about a perceived problem.
Too often, it’s easier to think of creating laws that “protect me” from social problems rather than laws that contribute to solving social problems.
Take, for example, the ordinance to ban living in vehicles within Palo Alto City limits. City records obtained through the California Public Records Act request by attorney Aram James revealed that a series of meetings were being conducted on this topic. Homeless in Vehicles – Enforcement aspects
Other documents received from the city attorney’s office contain email addresses of community members inviting them to attend a “Living in Vehicle Meeting” on June 30, 2011.
How those community members were selected is unclear. Presumably, these are the individuals who initiated the meetings to propose an ordinance. What is clear is that transparency had not yet been considered for these meetings.
This raises a question about transparency in government. Should local government meetings be open to the general public from the beginning of a proposed ordinance, or should meetings be held erstwhile in private until the idea and language of the ordinance is ready to be presented to the public, at which time invitations to attend meetings will be extended?
Of course, the latter sets up a scheme in which an ordinance is ready to be sent through to fulfill the wishes of its proponents, making it much more difficult to reshape Allowing the public to openly participate from inception and throughout the process may completely reshape or even kill a proposed ordinance early on.
The debate on homeless in vehicles opens to a wider debate on government procedure. While Molly Stump’s views on open government hadn’t been able to influence the process for the proposed ban on living in vehicles, let’s encourage our city council members to break with history and make open and transparent government a reality with future ordinance proposals.
Results of Attorney Aram James – California Public Records Act – Key Document Disclosure
We will not be presenting anything to the Council or the Policy & Services Committee on that date. Instead, we are scheduling a community forum on September 15th (Thursday) to discuss the issues and brainstorm solutions.
We expect the meeting to be held at the University Church in College Terrace (1611 Stanford Avenue) at 7:00 p.m. We will finalize the date, time and place by the end of the week and put an ad in the Weekly, post and distribute.
The earliest we could possibly get to Policy & Services is at their October 11th meeting, though it could be later. Thanks for checking in.
Editors note: Mr. Williams has been extremely open and candid on all vehicles ordinance planned discussions. This is a fine example of open government and transparency and model to follow.
Two Alligators were sitting around talking, and the smaller alligator turned to the bigger one and said, ‘I can’t understand how you can be so much bigger than me.
We’re the same age; we were the same size as Kids. I just don’t get it.’
‘Well,’ said the big Gator, ‘what have you been eating?’ ‘Politicians, same as you,’ replied the small Gator.
‘Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?’
‘Down the other side of the swamp near the parking lot by the Capitol’
‘Same here. Hmm. How do you catch them?’
‘Well, I crawl up under one of their Lexus cars and wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the shit out of them and eat ’em!’
‘Ah!’ says the big Alligator, ‘I think I see your problem. You’re not getting any real nourishment. See, by the time you finish shaking the shit out of a politician, there’s nothing left but an asshole and a briefcase.
United States Federal Judge Lucy H. Koh and possibly James Ware suppress evidence from United States Citizens in order to conceal crimes committed by the Palo Alto Police and Attorney Steven Sherman:
On March 7, 2011 and April 21, 2011 Joseph (Tony) Ciampi proved to U.S. Federal Judge Lucy Koh that the audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data submitted to the Court by the Palo Alto Police had been edited and falsified.
On May 11, 2011 Judge Koh ruled that it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause for police officers to falsify evidence/- audio/video evidence and taser gun activation data in order to mislead the courts in order to cover up their own unlawful actions and to falsely incriminate a citizen of a crime. Judge Koh was able to render this ruling by claiming that Ciampi is not allowed to submit evidence that exposes that the audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data has been tampered with. How convenient.
During the June 30, 2011 Sanctions hearing Ciampi once again proved that the audio/video recordings have been edited and falsified in addition to the Taser gun Data Ports and taser gun activation data.
During the June 30, 2011 Sanctions hearing Ciampi proved that Attorney Steven Sherman intentionally and knowingly made false statements to the court regarding the downloading of the taser gun activation data on December 17, 2010. Additionally, Ciampi proved that Attorney Steven Sherman submitted two falsified taser gun weapon summary reports in order to conceal two previous submitted falsified taser gun weapon summary reports.
The tampered taser gun Data Ports and the falsified weapon summaries/taser guns’ activation data indicate that both Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and Taser International Andrew Hinz are complicit given their submission of evidence and Declarations related to the taser guns and the weapon summary reports.
During the June 30, 2011 hearing Palo Alto Police Lt. Sandra Brown contradicted Taser International’s Andrew Hinz’s December 21, 2010 Declaration stating that taser camera V07-065373 was never sent to Taser International. On July 15, 2011, Ciampi requested that the court, Judge Koh post the June 30, 2011 transcript as the court had done in the past with April 21, 2011 Sanction’s transcript. On July 28, 2011 Ciampi once again requested that the court post the June 30, 2011 Sanction Hearing transcript.
(A side note, Ciampi has requested that Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen provide Ciampi with the taser gun activation data that was downloaded by the District Attorney’s office, but Jeff Rosen, a man who claims to be for TRUTH and JUSTICE refuses to provide Ciampi this information). See: http://www.freewillbill.com/da.html
As of August 4, 2011 United States Federal Judge Lucy H. Koh and Chief Judge James Ware refuse to reveal to the American people what Ciampi proved in court in June 30, 2011 by posting the June 30, 2011 hearing transcript, which Ciampi needs to complete preparing his case.
By refusing to post the June 30, 2011 transcript, Judges Koh and James Ware are denying Ciampi beneficial evidence to his case.
On July 5, 2011 Ciampi informed Judge Koh that she violated FRCiv. P. 5(d)(2)(B) by not securing the exhibits submitted to the court by Attorney Steven Sherman on behalf of the Palo Alto Police. As of August 4, 2011, Judge Koh still has not secured the evidence, the exhibits, with the Court Clerk so that Ciampi can inspect the evidence and exhibits and complete his preparations for his case.
“If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide, thus if you have to hide information from the People of the United States of America, obviously you have done something wrong.” G.P.
Senators Klobuchar and Leahy, I have contacted both Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Senator Dianne Feinstein to begin the process of investigating my allegations to determine whether Judge Koh’s actions require an impeachment and trial process through the House of Representatives and the Senate similar to what occurred to U.S. Federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. Attached are my letters to Congresswoman Eshoo and Senator Feinstein. You should be receiving the attached questionaire from Rep. Eshoo and Senator Feinstein if you haven’t already received one. I look forward to your responses.
Coca Cola used to contain cocaine …… that was OK…… for awhile.
Heart surgery in the 1930s often included the introduction of asbestos into the heart wall to stimulate blood flow……that was OK…..for awhile.
Radioactive Radium was commonly used in all sorts of ‘glow in the dark’ consumer products, including wristwatches…..that was OK…..for awhile.
Lead was a major component of gasoline worldwide to help smooth engine performance………that was OK…….for awhile.
Doctors used to recommend smoking to ease nerves, they said smoking was good for the ‘T’ zone…….that was OK until we figured out 500,000 people die every year from smoking related illnesses.
Smoking was OK…..for awhile.
There’s always the Money.
Smoking is still OK because the major Court settlements with the Tobacco companies include payments to the States of Billions of Dollars every year from tobacco profits. The States need the money, so even after we know that Tobacco’s no good, somehow the Money still makes Tobacco OK….for awhile.
We put fluoride in our drinking water thanks to the lobbying efforts of our Nation’s aluminum producers. Fluoride is a member of the Halide family of chemicals in the periodic table of elements. Fluoride behaves much more actively than its ‘cousins’ – Chlorine, Bromine and Iodine.
It is speculated that Fluoride displaces Iodine in the human Thyroid which regulates human metabolism. As many as One Third of all women in the United States may be HypoThyroid (causing weight gain, diabetes and many other diseases – all good for the Pharmaceutical industry), as a result of Fluoride exposure. Does my butt look big in this???
No Honey. And I love that big toothy smile. There has never been definitive scientific proof that fluoride prevents tooth decay. There has been an anomalous ‘correlation’ between areas of the country with fluoride occurring naturally in drinking water and dental hygeine but as they say, ‘correlation is not causation.’ Smokers used to get sick but so did non-smokers.
Cell Towers produce electromagnetic radiation. But there are no studies of the long term effects of such radiation. But what if continuous cell radiation exposure does have some subtle, wide reaching effects. Guess we’ll have to find that out….the hard way….after awhile.
Re: Monday’s (July 18, 2011) city council meeting and related First Amendment issues.
I very much appreciated the manner in which you conducted Monday’s city council meeting and the care and attention you gave to all of the speakers—who came before the council to speak on the issue of the proposed ban on people living in their vehicles.
I do, however–wish to make a few brief comments re the way you handled the oral communication of one of the speakers, specifically Mark Petersen-Perez:
(1)I appreciated the fact that you did not attempt to stop Mr. Petersen-Perez during his three minute talk/presentation to the city council, the live audience and the TV audience.
I believe that both the First Amendment and case law developed in this nuanced area of symbolic free speech/expression–clearly protects symbolic speech –such as turning one’s back on a government body while speaking –or, in fact simply turning one’s back on a governmental body and remaining absolutely silent during the speakers entire allotted 3 minutes.
(2) Certainly you are aware of other protected forms of symbolic free speech/expression-i.e., flag burning and or giving the middle finger to authority/government officials like a police officer, public defender, mayor, etc.
(3) As I have often been heard to say –the First Amendment was not designed to protect popular speech–such speech needs no protection –but, rather– it was designed to protect exactly the type of arguably unpopular, rude or offensive speech –turning your back on authority figures—that Mr. Petersen-Perez engaged in at Monday night’s council meeting.
(4)Turning one’s back to the council is no more or less offensive (no more or less protected by the First Amendment) than speaking directly to the council and expressing one’s anger and defiance in spoken word form. Both forms of expression are entitled to equal respect and standing under our First Amendment (whether we/you like it or not).
(5)Immediately after Mr. Petersen-Perez spoke you made some comments to the live audience, other council members and the TV audience (and correct me here if I am wrong re your words—since I do not recall the exact words— but rather the sentiment expressed) that suggested that Mr. Petersen-Perez had acted inappropriately in not communicating directly with the council when he spoke.
(6) If I am correct – Mr. Petersen-Perez did in fact talk directly to you, albeit–symbolically and arguably defiantly –when he turned his back on the council and spoke directly to the live audience.
Your suggestion that Mr. Petersen-Perez acted inappropriately has a direct and potential impact of chilling not only Mr. Petersen-Perez’s chosen form of First Amendment speech/expression in the future –but that of others who may choose to come before the council and exercise their protected right of free speech in a less than conventional manner.
(7)It would also appear that you did not act in an even handed fashion in your apparent attempt to disciple Mr. Petersen-Perez indirectly by your comments. From my observation– at least 3 members of the city council turned their backs on Mr. Petersen-Perez and the live audience –and then walked off the bench—during his presentation.
Yet at no time did you comment re their symbolic speech/expression. What’s good for the goose is good for the geese—Mr. Mayor—wouldn’t you agree! If not, you leave the distinct impression that you have two sets of rules–one for us—members of public– and another for your cronies on the bench.
****I believe you should make some type of clarifying comment re the above described situation to prevent chilling the speech of future members of the public who come to speak before the council.
****As an aside—although I think it is in bad form– I think the case law is clear that government officials have a First Amendment right not to listen to those who are speaking to them. As offensive as I might find it –when our elected officials walk out on a speaker- I believe such conduct is fully protected by the First Amendment.
I do, however, have a choice in the matter—not to vote for these three nut cases in the future, organize a campaign to recall them—or just let them make asses out of themselves any time they get ready.
****Ps, Ms. Stump [Chief attorney for the city of Palo Alto] please consider jumping into this conversation with your legal views on the issues I have attempted to raise. Thanks.
Up-date: Back by popular demand – Originally published on July 2oth, 2011.