PA IPA Michael Gennaco Turns to the Dark Side

Independent police auditor with close ties to the  police

If you have been following the ongoing series on the corruption within the Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office, www.larkinbarcomplaint.weebly.com you will want to read how Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor Michael Gennaco has allegedly conspired with Mr. Larkin and the Palo Alto Police in attempting to incriminate Tony Ciampi by using falsified videos and taser gun activation data at www.gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com which contains all of the direct evidence and exhibits verifying the allegations alleged.

Below is the text of the complaint filed with the California State Bar:

Click Here to View Exhibits Associated with the Complaint:

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

 

My name is Joseph (Tony) Ciampi. I bring this complaint against Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor, Attorney Michael Gennaco, Bar Number # 112969, as a result of his actions which occurred over the course of the last three and half years in which Mr. Gennaco knowingly concealed the crimes committed by the Palo Alto Police and Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office, Don Larkin. Additionally, Mr. Gennaco actually submitted a flawed and fraudulent report, Pgs. 5-6 of Exhibit 3, pgs 2-3 of report, to the Palo Alto City Council in order to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and therefore by way of his actions actually conspired with the Palo Alto Police and attorney Don Larkin to incriminate me of a crime by knowingly using falsified evidence, audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data, to do so.

Mr. Gennaco was first informed that Temores’ MAV video had been edited on May 13, 2008 approximately two weeks after I had first viewed the video. See Exhibit 1. At this time I had not viewed Burger’s MAV video or the Taser videos because they had not been provided. Thus my complaint was about Temores’ MAV video not the Taser Videos. In Mr. Gennao’s official report, Pgs. 5-6 of Exhibit 3, Mr. Gennaco conspicuously leaves out my complaint abut the Temores’ MAV video being edited and falsified.

I first learned of the watermark on the MAV videos approximately March of 2009. I emailed Mr. Gennaco on April 19, 2009 and asked him why he, like the Santa Clara District Attorney and Crime Lab, had not analyzed the watermark. Mr. Gennaco responded on April 27, 2009 by stating that he could not provide much detail regarding his review of the incident, yet Mr. Gennaco had already completed his thorough analysis using independent experts and submitted it to the City of Palo Alto on April 13, 2009. Mr. Gennaco intentionally lied to me. See Pg. 2 of Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. It should be noted that the Mr. Gennaco’s report was submitted to Palo Alto City Manager James Keene on or before April 13, 2009 and that the Mr. Keene apparently lost the report on his desk for six months, See Exhibit 37 and [6. Acceptance of Transmittal of Police Auditor’s Final Report for 2008 ]

On August 5, 2008 I informed Mr. Gennaco that the Palo Alto Police had violated Palo Alto Use of Force Policy 308.96 by not providing the Taser Guns Activation reports with the original police report. Mr. Gennaco refused to investigate at that time, but would look into it after current proceeding had been resolved. See Pgs. 3-4 of Exhibit 2. Mr. Gennaco never addressed the blatant violation and left it out of his official report. Mr. Gennaco made a false statement and never revealed the violation committed by the Palo Alto Police.

In Mr. Gennaco’s official report regarding my incident, he states the Taser had no effect on me. That is a bold face lie. Officer Burger shocked me for a minimum of 20 seconds and probably closer to 30 seconds during the incident. The video evidence clearly demonstrates that I was being shocked with electricity and Ofc. Burger himself admits that I was being shocked with electricity. In fact, Ofc. Burger himself admits to being shocked from his own taser wires, See lines 24-28 of Pg. 18 of Exhibit 38 and Video 9 of Exhibit 98 & Exhibit 99 of my complaint against Don Larkin, Inquiry Case No. 11-36148.
Mr. Gennaco’s assertion is contradicted by the evidence, See Exhibit s 9, 10 and 15 through 33.

In Mr. Gennaco’s March 7, 2010 report, he notes in another Taser incident that the Palo Alto Police had problems downloading the taser data and getting an accurate time stamp on it. It appears that the cover-ups continue, for the individual was subjected to two taser guns, a violation of Palo Alto Police Use of Force Policy, and went into seizures. See Pgs 8-10 of Exhibit 2 and Pgs. 4-5 of Exhibit 5.

Mr. Gennaco asserted in his official report regarding my incident that the videos comported with the account of the incident documented in the written reports. That is another false statement made by Mr. Gennaco, for Officer Wagner’s statement differs significantly from that in the videos and both Officers Temores and Burger make statements during the Pre-Trial Examination that contradicts the videos and taser gun activation data. In fact based upon Ofc. Wagner’s statement in the police report that I went down to the ground two separate times getting up off the ground in between and Ofc. Temores testifying under oath to the same, both Officers Wagner and Temores have essentially testified and verified that the video footage of me getting up off the ground has been removed from Temores’ MAV video. See Exhibits 12, 24, 25 & 26.

Wagner’s statements are contradicted by the photographs, Exhibit 33. Burger’s statements are contradicted by the videos, Exhibit 29. Temores’ statements are contradicted by the Taser gun activation data reports, Exhibits 25 through 26. Johnson’s and Burns’ statements are contradicted by the taser gun activation data and the videos, Exhibits 42-43.

Mr. Gennaco asserted in his official report that the “gaps” in the video tape of the taser videos was the result of the officers activating and deactivating the taser guns while switching modes. First, this act of switching modes would make it impossible for officers to comply with the Use of Force Policy 308.94 which states that the audio/video function shall be activated at all times that the taser is pulled from the holster, See Exhibits 39 and 40 and Pg. 5 of Exhibit 41. Furthermore, Temores’ own MAV video verifies that Burger’s Taser Camera should be recording audio/video footage when in fact it is not according to the PAPD, See Exhibits 6, 7 & 8.

Mr. Gennaco obtained a contract from the City of Palo Alto to conduct investigations of the Palo Alto Police regarding their use of taser guns. A contract in which an outside auditing mechanism, Mr. Gennaco, would ensure that Palo Alto Police Officers would be held accountable should they unlawfully abuse citizens with taser guns, Exhibits 34, 35 & 36. By covering up Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger’s torture of me by using electricity from his taser gun, Mr. Gennaco misrepresented to the people and the City of Palo Alto his true intentions and actions should he ever be confronted with holding officers accountable for the unlawful use of taser guns.

Mr. Gennaco’s analysis is contradicted by Temores’ and Burger’s MAV videos, the Taser videos, the Taser gun Activation data which has been falsified, (Exhibit 14) and the Palo Alto Use of Force Policy. Mr. Gennaco has submitted a fraudulent report to the City of Palo Alto in order to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and to wrongfully incriminate me of a crime by using falsified video and other evidence.. See Exhibits 15 through 33 and 44. Additionally I cite all of the evidence and exhibits submitted in Inquiry Case No. 11-36148, complaint against Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin.

I believe it completely improbable that the Palo Alto Police were capable of editing and tampering with the Data Ports inside the taser guns prior to Mr. Gennaco analyzing the evidence during the months of March, April and May. Given that three separate Santa Clara County Crime Lab Analysts failed to document the activation data in their official reports corroborates this assertion. As such I believe that Mr. Gennaco viewed and or knew that the activation data retained on the Data Ports completely contradicted the edited videos. Thus, there was and is no way that Mr. Gennaco does not know that the videos have been falsified.

To this day, Mr. Gennaco refuses to address my complaint, my allegations and my evidence. Even if the Palo Alto Police initially duped Mr. Gennaco early on, there is no possibility that Mr. Gennaco is not currently aware of the tampering and falsification of the videos and taser guna activation data given all of the evidence I have provided to him and the City of Palo Alto. So the question is, why does Mr. Gennaco continue to conceal the tampering, suppression, destruction, editing and falsification of the evidence? The answer is Mr. Gennaco has conspired with the Palo Alto Police to incriminate me of a crime by using falsified evidence verified by his submission of a fraudulent report to the City Council of Palo Alto.

Mr. Gennaco has violated State Bar Rule 3-110 by failing to perform legal services for the public in his capacity as an Independent Police Auditor. Mr. Gennaco is paid by the citizens of Palo Alto whom he failed.

By submitting his official report, Exhibit 3, to the Palo Alto City Council and thereby making it a public document, Mr. Gennaco violated State Bar Rule 5-120 especially when he knowingly prepared the report in a false and fraudulent manner in order to conceal the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes which is a violation of State Bar Rule 5-200(A).

In preparing his false report and then submitting it to the City of Palo Alto, Mr. Gennaco violated Penal Codes 132 and 134. Mr. Gennaco’s motive for preparing and submitting his false report was to cover up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and Palo Alto Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin, a violation of Penal Code 32. Additionally, the evidence points to that Mr Gennaco had and has the motive to aid the Palo Alto Police Department’s and Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin’s intent to falsely incriminate me of a crime by using falsified evidence, thus, Mr. Gennaco violated Penal Code 182(a)(1)(2)(3)(5). As a result of these actions and omissions, Mr. Gennaco has violated Business and Professions Code 6068(a), 6106 and 6128(a) and therefore should be suspended from practicing law at the very least or more appropriately receive permanent disbarment for his despicable actions that are completely contrary to everything that the American Justice system is supposed to stand for.

Sincerely,
December 27, 2011
Joseph (Tony) Ciampi

SC company sues ex-worker over Twitter followers

Follow @ your own risk!

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — An Internet company has sued one of its former employees, saying the worker cost the company thousands of dollars in lost business when he took 17,000 Twitter followers with him when he left the firm.

PhoneDog LLC filed a lawsuit in July against Noah Kravitz, a writer who worked for the Mount Pleasant, S.C., company from 2006 until last year. Attorneys for the website, which reviews mobile devices like phones and tablets, said Kravitz owes them $340,000.

The company said when Kravitz resigned, he changed his Twitter name from PhoneDog_Noah to noahkravitz, and kept his 17,000 followers. The company said the followers should be treated like a customer list, and therefore PhoneDog’s property.

PhoneDog said Kravitz should pay $2.50 per follower per month for eight months, or a total of $340,000.

Steve O’Donnell, a patent and intellectual property attorney, said he hadn’t heard of a similar case. He doubted that each follower is worth the $2.50.

“On Twitter, if you hang out long enough, you’ll get hundreds of follows from people who are just gathering accounts and broadcasting their own content — people who aren’t necessarily paying attention to anything PhoneDog has to say,” said O’Donnell, who practices law in Lancaster, Pa. “Twitter followers can come and go. … It’s very transient. It’s going to be hard for them to put a dollar number on something that’s so ethereal.”

Kravitz, who now lives in Oakland, Calif., eventually went to work for a competitor website and now boasts nearly 24,000 Twitter followers.

In court documents, Kravitz said he used the Twitter account in question mostly for personal musings about sporting events and pop culture and, after leaving the company, even sent out messages at PhoneDog’s behest about the company’s contests and giveaways. Kravitz said he sent such messages as recently as December 2010 and that PhoneDog only objected to his use of the account after he sued them in June for unpaid wages in an ongoing case.

“Only after that do they come out of the woodwork for the first time and say, ‘Hey, you converted our property,'” Cary Kletter, Kravitz’s attorney, said Thursday. “That case is without merit.”

PhoneDog’s valuation is flawed and inflated, he said.

“To claim that they’re entitled to $2.50 per follower per month defies reason,” Kletter said. “If that’s the case, Kim Kardashian’s account would probably be worth billions of dollars of year.”

Celebrities can get paid for tweets, sometimes $10,000 or more per post.

Erik Heels, a patent and trademark attorney in Boston, said the lawsuit may provide a monetary determination, but the most valuable outcome could be in helping companies in setting up their own social media guidelines.

“The lesson for employers is to make sure you define these things in advance for your employees,” Heels said. “Don’t make any assumptions because you may end up on the wrong side of the lawsuit.”

A hearing in the case is set for next month in San Francisco. An attorney for PhoneDog president Tom Klein did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

___

By MEG KINNARD | AP –Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP

Palo Alto Mayor Sid Espinosa – Just Another Cut and Paste List of Accomplishments?

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE

TO SIDNEY A. ESPINOSA AS MAYOR

WHEREAS, Sid Espinosa served as Mayor of the City of Palo Alto from January 4, 2011 through January 3, 2012; and

WHEREAS, Sid advocated for visionary and much-needed building projects, including the completion of negotiations for the Stanford Hospital and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital expansions, finishing the Downtown Library renovation, and breaking ground on the 2.5-million gallon emergency water tank construction, among others; and

Compared to Former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:

WHEREAS, 2010 was a year of unprecedented challenges for the City, with an international fiscal crisis, serious City budget concerns, labor tensions, profound high speed rail considerations, and a large and complex negotiation regarding the Stanford Hospital project; and

WHEREAS, Sid is focused on the long-term health and financial strength of the City, helping to ensure a balanced budget, overseeing critical structural changes in the City’s labor agreements, supporting the important work of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC), which will establish a long-term and comprehensive plan for infrastructure maintenance and planning across the City, and promoting the development of an Economic Development Plan for Palo Alto; and

Compared to Former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:

WHEREAS, under the leadership of Mayor Burt the City closed a $6.3 million mid-year budget gap and eliminated a $7.3 million dollar structural deficit and began the process to restructure its long-term pension and health care costs for real structural change while at the same time improving its management and labor relations; and

WHEREAS, Sid is a recognized environmental leader, speaking at numerous environmental conferences and events, declaring 2011 the “Year of the Bike” in Palo Alto, actively promoting Earth Day and Safe Routes to School for our City’s youth, ensuring the update of the City’s Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan, and being honored by environmental non-profit leader Hidden Villa with the Humanitarian of the Year Award; and

Compared to Former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:

WHEREAS, Mayor Burt oversaw noteworthy progress in the environmental review of Stanford University’s proposals to remodel and expand the Stanford University Medical Center; and

WHEREAS, Sid advocated for the use of technology to revolutionize the way that Palo Alto provides government services and interacts with its citizens, including initiatives with OPower and IDEO to test new innovations within City departments, pushing for the completion of the new website, launching new mobile applications like one that will help citizens report problems to City departments, and actively using video as a means of communicating, among others; and

WHEREAS, Sid is a champion for the City’s emergency preparedness, including active involvement in the highly successful Quakeville exercise, speaking at neighborhood association meetings and community preparation events, and creating videos to inform citizens about how to become prepared – all to ensure that Palo Alto is ready for an inevitable disaster; and

Compared to Former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:

WHEREAS, Mayor Burt strongly supported the city’s goal of emergency preparedness, including the City’s completion of the Fire Services Study, over 200 Safety and Disaster Preparedness presentations, and the Quakeville exercise; and

WHEREAS, Sid has a deep commitment to improving teen mental health in our community, bringing together people and organizations from across the City to focus on youth engagement, and speaking at school, non-profit, and business events regarding these issues; and strongly supporting the Project Safety Net initiative, which was recognized this year by the League of California Cities with a Helen Putnam Award for Excellence in Health and Wellness programs; and

Compared to Former Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:

WHEREAS, Mayor Burt’s leadership on the issue of youth well-being – a difficult and emotional topic — was influential in the City’s adoption of the well regarded Project Safety Net initiative.

WHEREAS, Sid focused on government transparency and public outreach, launching a monthly Mayor’s Messages newsletter, creating regular office hours including “mobile mayor” office hours across the community, and constantly inviting people from across the City to volunteer and get actively involved in City issues; and

WHEREAS, Sid did all of the aforementioned work and more with a genuine excitement, constant professionalism, sincere friendliness, and real passion for improving the City of Palo Alto and the lives of people therein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Sidney A. Espinosa and gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for meritorious service rendered and contributions made during his term as Mayor.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED: JANUARY 3, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ ________________________
City Manager City Attorney

1. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO SIDNEY A. ESPINOSA AS MAYOR

2. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO PATRICK BURT AS MAYOR

The Little Girl Nobody Wanted For Christmas

In keeping with the holiday spirit, here’s a true Christmas story about money.

I was sitting at the stage at a San Francisco strip club minding my own business when this stripper walked up to me and caught me in the act.

“What are you doing?” she asked. I had been startled. “Um… er…” How was I supposed to explain without looking like the total nerd that I really am? I said, “The manager said I could sit here doing this as long as it didn’t bother anyone.” What a pathetic excuse.  “Don’t interrupt me”, I continued, “I’m almost done.” I started moving my right hand faster to catch up for the lost time.

She looked at my left hand: “That paper towel is almost already filled up. Shouldn’t you get a new one?” She looked at my right hand: “That’s quite a weapon you have. The little pen can be mightier than the biggest sword, you know.” In my left hand I was holding a paper towel from the bathroom. In my right hand I was holding my instrument, which was no bigger than an eyeliner pencil. In fact, it was eyeliner pencil. I was hurriedly writing statistics on a paper towel filled to the edge with little numbers. I was writing even faster for the time lost to the stripper.

I am a statistician and real estate investor. I was given permission by the strip club manager and owner to take statistics on the size of the tips given by the customers. Beer sales are traditionally used because beer is a small dollar purchase and considered a nonessential item that can be reduced when home budgets start to tighten. I would then compare the predictive power of using tips on stage with that of using beer sales as a leading economic indicator. Tips on the stage at a strip club have a wider range than beer, but can still be adjusted down to a single dollar. If my idea worked, I would then use this data for my real estate investments to get an edge on the beer stats investors.

Then she propositioned me. “I gots a good investment for you. I’m a virgin and really don’t want to be in here tonight.” She had just come out of the booth from giving a lap dance. She started to explain, but I had a hard time understanding her. She was clearly of Chinese ancestry. But she had a thick African American inner city accent and used words and a grammar that seemed to be neo-Ebonics. She went on to explain.

When she was a baby in Taiwan, a wealthy African American investor had purchased her on the “black market”.   His wife could not bear children. She was going to be a Christmas present for his wife. When the couple came to pick her up, she got suddenly and inexplicably got extremely sick and almost died. The couple rejected her. She was placed in an orphanage by the state.

A wealthy Jewish couple came to the orphanage and they took her on a “test drive” before permanently adopting her. She got sick again and they took her back and got another baby that was not broken. She said she had the misfortune that whenever a couple came to adopt her, she would inexplicably get extremely sick to the point of death.

All of the other little girls at the orphanage got adopted. But she was the little girl nobody wanted. The reason she would get sick turned out to be that she was allergic to shell fish and peanut butter. Finally an African American working class couple from the inner city took her in. She grew up in an impoverished inner city Oakland home immersed in that culture. The home was filled with other foster care kids, her “brothers and sisters”.

The foster parents were good Christians with very strict ethics. She was not allowed to date boys and had to come straight home from school to do her homework.
On her eighteenth birthday, she came home from high school and found that her scant possessions were out on the sidewalk and that the front door lock had been changed. Because she had turned eighteen, her foster parents were no longer paid by the government to love her. So they put all of her things on the street and she was on her own in the inner city as a new young adult. She went from business to business looking for work. But in the Obama-Bush Recession had hit hard and there were no jobs, especially for someone with no experience and no permanent address.

She was sleeping in the back of the BART train for warmth when she met a stripper who told her that she could make enough money to survive in the strip club, where they were always hiring. So this young adult who had never even been on a date with a boy ended up doing lap dances in a strip club to survive.
I thought to myself that this had to be one of the most elaborate hustles I had ever heard. Then came the “investment” proposition. She said, “I have to go get Mia”. She left and came back with her co-worker Mia. In strip clubs, two strippers approaching a customer is called “tag teaming”.
Mia looked like a chipmunk. She was 21 and her wisdom teeth were coming in. They were impacted and had become infected. This caused her jowls to swell up like her mouth was full of food. Since strippers were officially “independent contractors”, there was no health care plan from the corporation that owned the club.

The Bay Area counties also leave a gap in health care coverage for dental plans. Mia was from a foster care family, too. She had flown up for the weekend from San Diego because the recession had hit San Diego so hard that no customers were tipping. She told me that the San Francisco club would not let her dance because she looked like a chipmunk. She was about to fly back down to San Diego. She explained that she had saved every penny she made working as a stripper. She now had $10,000.00 saved up, an enormous amount for a stripper to actually save.

Her plan was to save another $10,000.00 for a down payment to buy a three bedroom condominium. San Diego County had a plan where it would guarantee rent at the prevailing rate for young adults out of foster care who were under 26 years old. Twenty Six is considered “the age of emancipation”, before which a young adult is not expected to be able to fully live on their own. She would then rent out the rooms in the condo with a guaranteed income provided by the government, and thuds qualify for a home loan without a steady income.

Banks like the certainty of a payment from the government. She would then save up more and buy a full home and then do the same thing. Her plan was to both make money and help new young adults who just lost their foster home. She would make sure that they were not homeless like she was. She proposed that I could invest in her plan by contributing the other half of the down payment, and I would have a guaranteed income from the government far more than what my down payment could make in any other guaranteed investment.

As for the first stripper, it turns out she was going to a 4 year college in the east bay and really was a virgin. She was majoring in early childhood development and had all A’s. She wanted me to not only meet Mia, but to invest in a child care facility for single mom’s working in strip clubs, which she wanted to open after she got her bachelor’s degree. My business partner’s grandson was also in college getting the same degree, and they now want to become business partners in her venture when they graduate.

The Huxley Family Foundation did an exploratory survey of strippers in San Francisco that year. Over 100 strippers were interviewed. Twenty Three percent of Bay Area strippers in that survey were from foster families. About 30 percent were single moms. Zero percent had dental coverage. Strippers are typically of the age when wisdom teeth come in, so I imagine that Mia’s wisdom tooth problem was not unique among strippers. The foundation conducted a similar exploratory survey in Los Angeles and found 17 percent were from foster care families. This is a good indication for doing a rigorous scientific study of just where our foster care kids go when they become adults, before the age of emancipation.

San Diego County did a financial calculation and their program turns out to be much cheaper than supporting these young adults just out of foster care in general assistance or other government assistance program. Mia was featured in a San Diego newspaper for her plan. The County of Santa Clara should adopt such a program like the County of San Diego has. Now I don’t often cuss. I reserve fowl language for those times when it is appropriate. This is one of those times and I am about to do it. So if you might be offended you should stop reading now. Here goes. Investing in these strippers not only sounds like a good investment to me, it sounds like a gosh darn good investment! Palo Alto should invest in these here strippers.  That’s the plain truth.

Use of image and for more information on Bill Czappa and his artistic expressions, please be sure to visit his website.

Attention Upside Down Homeowners : Are you upside down and owe more than your house is worth?

Luckily for readers of Palo Alto Free Press, there is an exciting new strategy that has just become available to distressed homeowners and is not a short sale or loan modification. First let me mention that this only works on jumbo mortgages.

Jumbo mortgages that were taken out during the height of the housing market several years ago (especially 2006) are most in danger of being upside down, and the funny thing is that jumbo loans used to be regarded as safe investments for banks, but now these type of mortgages are increasingly seen as problematic by homeowners who do not see any sign of their equity improving.

In a recent news article “Jumbo Mortgage Holders Pose Highest Risk of Strategic Default” by Kenneth R. Harney published in the Los Angeles Times on November 13, 2011 and in the Washington Post on November 11, 2011, this growing trend is analyzed and given proper perspective. Sadly, until recently, there seemed to be no clear exit strategy for homeowners that were upside down, besides strategically defaulting and walking away from the situation. However, the financial and legal consequences, not to mention triple digit damage to credit have posed a huge burden to homeowners who were considering taking a strategic default. More than 12 million mortgages are estimated to be underwater, and 30% of defaults on loans are strategic.

Jumbo mortgages are also known as non-conforming loans, because they are above the limits set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This conforming loan limit is set at $417,000 but can be higher in areas where home values are greater. For example, the conforming loan limits since October 2011 for Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda Counties are all set at $729,750.

Now, if you’re unable (or unwilling) to keep your upside down mortgage any longer and would like to drastically reduce your loan (without damaging your credit), then you need to know more about some of the residential workouts that are going on “behind the scenes.”

Did you realize that many lenders are accepting payoffs at 40 to 50 cents on the dollar… without holding you responsible for the difference!

Darla Y. B. in Michigan just cut $400,000 off of her mortgage.

My name is Crystal and my investment group and I specialize in helping upside down home-owners keep their properties. The strategy is simple. We purchase your debt at a discount from your current lender and then sell it back to you – saving you thousands from your original debt!

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be too good to be true. Once I checked it out, I realized that many banks are ready and willing to accept a fire-sale cash price to get jumbo loan mortgages off of their books! This window of opportunity may only last for a short time, so please call me now at 1-800-390-4334.

99ers and The Long-term Unemployed, The Elephants in the Economic Recovery Room

The latest BLS employment report showed a gain of 244,000 jobs for April, which was trumpeted by the Obama administration and the media as a continuation of a rapidly improving jobs market.

While job growth is important, it’s also important to realize the jobs hole that needs to be filled. Over the past four months more than 800,000 jobs have been created, but in January 2009 alone, more than 800,000 jobs were lost.

Since February 2010, 1.8 million jobs have been created, but 8.8 million jobs were lost prior to that period. That’s a job shortage of 7 million and that doesn’t include the 125,000 jobs each month that needed to be created to simply absorb new entrants into the workforce.

Additionally, the unemployment rate increased to 9%, since more people began looking for work. Returning job seekers is often considered an improved sign of job availability, but if they aren’t hired, they will go back into hiding and the unemployment rate will decline. Because of returning job seekers, the number of officially unemployed increased 205,000 to 13.75 million, which is still historically high when compared to other jobs challenged times.

One of the few honest assessments of the current jobs market was offered by Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute:

At this point, coming out of a recession this deep, we should be getting unambiguously huge growth, of 300,000 to 400,000 [new jobs] a month,” said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “And it’s just nowhere near that.” She concluded: “We’re still in a rocky place.”

The job market is admittedly improving for some, but it’s not improving quickly enough for millions of jobless, especially the long-term unemployed. In April, the ranks of the unemployed who have been out of work for 99 weeks or more increased by 21,000 to a record 1,920,000. That equates to 14.5% of all unemployed.

Other long-term unemployed fared a little better in April compared to March. Those out of work for 26 weeks or more decreased from 5.839 million from 6.122 million in March. But their percentage of the overall unemployment rate remained elevated at a near record level of 43.2%. The percentage of those out of work for more and 52 weeks increased from 31.5% to 32.8% of all unemployed.

The mainstream media, Congress and the Obama administration don’t often mention the long-term unemployed. How do they reconcile the fact that 244,000 jobs were created, but 21,000 additional workers have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks? How do they put on a happy face when a near record 5.893 million or 43.2% of all unemployed workers have been jobless for more than 26 weeks?

How do they rationalize their cheerful statements of job improvements with the facts that job creation is very weak considering the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy to support Wall Street and fund tax breaks? How do they high-five the economic recovery when the labor force participation rate – the share of people over age 16 who are either working or actively seeking work — is at a low rate of 64.2%, a rate not seen since 1985? They can’t. They generally ignore the issue; long-term unemployment is the elephant in the economic recovery room.

What is being done legislatively to address this elephant in the room? To date, nothing. The GOP controlled House has been busy trying to cut the deficit, repeal healthcare funding, and restart offshore oil drilling. The Republicans, with the help of some Democrats, are attempting to weaken Wall Street regulation legislation, end net neutrality, and are arguing the Defense of Marriage Act. They are pandering to their base, acquiescing to their corporate overlords and obliging their big-wallet campaign contributors.

These congressional laggards have not presented a jobs bill or employment training legislation, conducted investigations on how to solve long-term unemployment, or offered tax incentives for companies to hire the long-term unemployed. They have ignored legislation, such as Rep. Barbara Lee’s H.R. 589, that would help millions of long-term unemployed, the 99ers, who have exhausted all unemployment benefits. While most of the blame can be placed at the door of the GOP controlled House, the Democratic controlled Senate and Obama have been suspiciously silent about the long-term unemployment problem.

Long-term unemployment is not only a national tragedy, but it is a personal tragedy as well. Rochelle Sevier was laid off in October 2008 while working as a recruitment coordinator for a biotech firm. Since that time, “I started my job search immediately. In addition to my job search, I attended various workshops at my local career center. As part of my search I attended job fairs, partnered with temp agencies, posted my resume online, and also submitted my resume to various positions.”

During the past couple of years Rochelle took part-time temporary positions that included folding sweaters and stuffing envelopes. Her unemployment benefits ended in September 2010 and she didn’t find another job until January 2011 when an administrative position became available. Unfortunately that job ended six weeks later, “I finished out my 6th week and now I am back to square one. This rejection affected my emotional and mental state. I started to feel hopeless and depressed because I now feel like I will never work again.”

The long-term unemployed are also part of the growing ranks of food stamp recipients, personal bankruptcies, foreclosures and healthcare uninsured. Ellen Turner, who was laid off from her job in December 2008 has struggled with healthcare costs since her COBRA plan ended in June 2010. “Now I have nothing. Hoping I can stay fairly healthy till I reach 65, and I can get Medicare. I have one knee without cartilage that has to be replaced…at a cost of 10k. Can’t do it. I have severe osteoporosis; I need fusions of reclast every year. This year, the pharmaceutical co. provided the reclast, I only have to pay for the doctor visit and lab fees: $136 bucks total. I am fortunate that I can pay this, while others at my age cannot. I turned 63 on May 10th.” Ellen is now one of the more than 50 million Americans who do not have healthcare.

Susan R sent the following cry for help:  “Any idea on what is happening with HR 589? My unemployment ends end of the month and I cannot get a job. I have tried everywhere. I used to be a legal secretary but now they want college which I do not have, Now you have to apply for stores, etc. online and I never hear back. I think my only hope is to kill myself. There is no hope. Also they keep saying things are getting better but I don’t see where and neither does anyone I talk to. Everyone says things are bad!!”

H.R. 589 is legislation is designed to help the long-term unemployed by extending Tier 1 unemployment benefits another 14 weeks. Those 14 weeks could be a financial lifesaver for millions of unemployed. Although the legislation has been discussed for months, moving it forward in a Republican controlled House will be challenging. How challenging? House Republicans are hoping to introduce legislation that could cut extended unemployment benefits in favor of lower business taxes and allow states to spend that money on other programs:

The Ways and Means Committee passed a bill by 20-14 today that lets states shift some of the $31 billion they are set to get for extended unemployment aid to prevent the tax increases, pay back federal loans or fund job-training programs.

While those are all commendable options, they are long-term rewards that won’t help those that need immediate financial assistance. Oil companies have reported record profits, but the GOP favors giving them billions in taxpayer subsidies while at the same time forcing the long-term unemployed to suffer without any financial assistance.

The latest H.R.589 update comes from Crew of 42’s Lauren Victoria Burke; the news is both positive and disappointing:

The good news for 99ers: The President mentioned he wants to possibly attach the 99ers money to some other big piece of legislation somehow… which piece, how and when is unclear…

The bad news for 99ers: The President does not seem deeply motivated to to actively support unemployment benefits in general terms.

Congress needs to address the elephants in the room, since millions of Americans are being sidelined by a relatively weak job market. That needs to change quickly and dramatically or more hard-working individuals such as Rochelle, Ellen and Susan will continue to bare the financial hardship and personal pain of long-term unemployment. Open your eyes now, Congress.

Originally reported, May 13, 2011: Mike has spent the past two decades as an environmental remediation specialist and technical writing consultant. An Environmental Sciences graduate of SUNY Brockport, Mike has been writing for the past year about unemployment and workplace issues. He is the creator, manager and content author of layofflist.org and he writes regularly for the Daily Insight at allpinkslips.com. You can reach Michael at this address.

A Christmas Story

This is actually an Easter story, but nobody’s perfect. It was Easter a few years ago. My sunrise hiking gang came down from the Mt. Hollywood mountaintop and we all went to a special “Easter for Atheists” screening of a new film at the local Hollywood skeptic society hall. The film was a documentary presenting evidence that the historic Jesus was actually a myth.

The whole hiking gang was there, Paul Fleiss (Heidi’s dad), George Dicaprio (Leonardo’s dad), the Hollywood and defense industry financier, the entertainment attorney, the artisan craftsman, the LAPD cop who shoots pictures, the whole gang.

There was a homeless guy panhandling at the door. Everyone ignored the guy as if he did not just ask for spare change or exist at all. I carry a stack of two dollar bills in my wallet to give to homeless people under a theory that they might keep it for good luck, so in an emergency they still have two dollars. Also because for some reason they usually smile when I pull it out and say, “wow, a two dollar bill”. I say that it is the cheapest smile I can purchase, and people chuckle. I then point out that they just smiled, which means I got even more than one smile out of the deal.

Inside, it was a packed auditorium. I looked around. It seems like everyone I knew in Hollywood was there. During the discussion period after the screening, someone brought up an argument against the possibility of there being a heaven and hell that most of us have thought of when we were kids. He said that if there was a heaven and hell, and the good people who think about others and not just themselves go to heaven, then how can they be in heaven if they are thinking about all of the suffering in hell, or on earth for that matter.

I thought about how everyone in the audience seemed to enjoy the film, yet just outside the door was a homeless guy with only a two dollar bill to his name. If everyone could enjoy the film with this guy out there suffering, then why would they not be able to do the same in heaven.

I started to raise my hand with my clever new contrarian argument. Then I realized that all I did was give a guy two dollars with my self-promoting rationale, so I was about to point to my own hypocrisy in pointing out that of others. I kept my mouth shut.

When I got outside the homeless guy was gone. Every time I am in that neighborhood, I look around for him. I’m never going to find him again. That’s the plain truth.

Cowards Fear Truth

Cowards fear the truth; therefore they create lies to hide their harmful deeds. Bullies use their position of power to harm the weaker with their lies. Those who have the qualities of truth and justice as their convictions will appose the cowards and the bullies in order to uphold truth and justice for the weak.

Below is my petition to the Board of Governors of the California State Bar requesting that they uphold truth and justice by holding Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin accountable for the crimes he has committed.

Jon Streeter

President of California State Bar Board of Governors and The California State Bar Board of Governors,

I am writing to you to inform you of my complaint filed on December 5, 2011 with the State Bar against Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin, Bar No. #199759 who has committed numerous violations of the law and State Bar Rules. The most egregious violation is Mr. Larkin’s conspiratorial acts committed to incriminate me of a crime using falsified videos. Attached to this email you will find my complaint which details all of the charges. There is no way that I could conveniently provide all of the evidence therefore I created a website where you can access all of the exhibits and evidence that supports my allegations.

GO TO: http://larkinbarcomplaint.weebly.com/index.html

The reason why I am bringing my complaint to you is because I do not expect the California State Bar to hold Mr. Larkin accountable for the violations of the law and state bar rules which he has committed. Given that no one in the justice system has held anyone accountable and that everyone knows everyone and everyone is protecting everyone I have to assume that the investigators and attorneys in the State Bar know people in the Department of Justice who know Judge Koh and IPA Michael Gennaco both of whom have covered up the crimes of the PAPD.

Go to: http://larkinbarcomplaint.weebly.com/gennaco.html

Thus, I don’t expect your organization to reveal truth either when fellow former Assistant U.S. Attorney Jayne Kim as the State Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel. Interestingly, Judge Koh held the same title and position with the Central District of California from 1997-2000.

However, I do put my complaint forward to you and to the public so that the public knows that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns, Attorney Don Larkin, IPA Michael Gennaco, the Santa Clara County DA/Crime Lab, the Department of Justice and the State Bar cannot refute the evidence. All anyone has ever been able to do is ignore the evidence, for if anyone were to address my evidence they would have to admit that my allegations are true.

Whether the State Bar supports or refutes my allegations I simply request that in doing so that the State Bar addresses the specific evidence that I have put forward.

I was the one who was assaulted by Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger without provocation or justification, tortured with electricity, all of which was caught on audio/ video recordings and instead of Burger going to jail for his crime he and his fellow officers with the knowledge, consent and aid of Mr. Larkin, edited and falsified the videos and destroyed evidence in order to incriminate me of a crime. That’s an extremely cowardly and despicable act that is contrary to everything that America and the American Justice System are supposed to stand for.

If the police and the city attorneys can falsify audio/video recordings to incriminate citizens of crimes and get caught doing it and then not be held accountable, then our American Justice System, our Legal system is fraud.

Federal Judge Lucy Koh, and Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor Michael Gennaco both worked for the Department of Justice out of the California Central Division at the same time. Attorney Michael Gennaco has created a fraudulent report to cover up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police. It took a federal Judge, Lucy H. Koh, to violate Federal Rules of Procedure and use fabricated evidence in order to deny me the opportunity to prove my allegations in a court of law.

Go To: https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=kMKCfYm7jIp*q6nRR0wyiw

Should the State Bar conclude contrary to my allegations I am prepared to take my case to the California Supreme Court. I thank you for any time and resources that you use in objectively and thoroughly investigating my complaint.

Sincerely,

Joseph (Tony) Ciampi

P.O. Box 1681

Palo Alto, CA 94302

650-248-1634

__________________________________

December 3, 2011

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake

The State Bar of California

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

My name is Joseph (Tony) Ciampi. I bring this complaint against Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin Bar No. # 199759 as a result of his actions which occurred over the course of the last three and half years. Attorney Don Larkin is the Assistant City Attorney of Palo Alto and in that capacity oversees all litigation and prosecutions that result from the actions of the Palo Alto Police Department.

On March 15, 2008 I was unlawfully arrested and assaulted by three Palo Alto Police Officers; Manuel Temores, Kelly Burger and April Wagner. In order to cover up their unlawful assault and arrest, personnel within the Palo Alto Police Department falsified four audio/video recordings and two taser guns’ data ports, (data ports record the duration of electrical discharge). I was charged with felony resisting arrest, Case No. BB833050. California Superior Court Judge Thang Barrett dismissed the charges against me, citing that the officers violated my Constitutional Rights. I subsequently filed a civil suit in Federal Court in San Jose California, (Case No. 5:09-cv-02655), against the officers involved as well as the City of Palo Alto.

I have provided all of the evidence to my complaint stored in an electronic format for your convenience. Some of the PDF Exhibits are duplicated in Word formats for clarity.

Included with this Complaint are:

Exhibits 1 through 90;
Court Documents 59 through 210 (Case No. C09-02655);
Criminal Pre-Trial Transcript;
Burger’s MAV transcript, (Exhibit 52);
Taser gun activation Data, (Exhibit 27);
Taser Videos;
Burger’s MAV video;
Temores’ MAV video;
Temores’ MAV video with watermark (according to the City of Palo Alto);
Complete analysis of videos and evidence;
Santa Clara County Crime Lab Reports;
Forensic Expert Gregg Stutchman’s Report, (Exhibits 4(A)(B)(C);
and other evidence.

As verified by the State Bar Court of California, In the Matter of

BENJAMIN T. FIELD, Member No. 168197, Case Nos. 05-O-00815-PEM (06-O-11153; 06-O-12173); 06-O-12344 (Cons.) FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2009

In every criminal prosecution there exists an entity which the courts call the ―prosecution team.‖ ―Courts have thus consistently ‗decline[d] to draw a distinction between different agencies under the same government, focusing instead upon the ‗prosecution team‘ which includes both investigative and prosecutorial personnel.‖ (In re Brown (19198) 17 Cal.4th 873, 879.) The prosecution team has four component parts:

The prosecutor‘s office;

The investigating agency or agencies;

Assisting agencies and persons; and

Agencies closely tied to the prosecution. (See Pen. Code, § 1054.5.)

(Pg. 18 of Exhibit 1)

Attorney Don Larkin was a part of the Prosecution Team in Case No. BB833050 thereby requiring Mr. Larkin to abide by all State Bar Rules and California Laws in said case. Additionally, Mr. Don Larkin personally oversaw the defense of Civil Case Case No. 5:09-cv-02655 requiring Mr. Larkin to again abide by all laws and State Bar Rules.

What follows are concise complaints regarding Mr. Larkin’s unlawful acts committed in his capacity as an attorney representing the City of Palo Alto and the City’s employees in his attempt to wrongfully prosecute me using falsified evidence, concealing these facts by his actions and then to aid the Palo Alto Police Officers from being arrested and charged with the crimes they have committed in addition to several ethical violations perpetrated during the course of Civil Case No. 5:09-cv-02655.

ONE: SUPRESSION OF TASER VIDEO EVIDENCE

On April 23, 2008 and April 30, 2008 my criminal defense attorney David Beauvais requested all evidence regarding my March 15, 2008 arrest and tasering.

See Exhibit 2.

On May 30, 2008 at a Pre-Trial Conference, DDA Deborah Medved stated to David Beauvais that there were no taser videos. Ms. Medved received this information from the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Police Department, thus from Attorney Donald Larkin, See Exhibits 2A, 2B and pg. 2 of Ext. 12.

I requested local residents to contact the City and demand that the City give me the Taser videos. These requests verify that Attorney Don Larkin was in fact suppressing evidence in violation Pen. Code, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, and State Bar Rule 5-220.

See Exhibit. 3.

On June 2, 2008 my Attorney David Beauvais was informed that the City would be releasing the taser videos as a result of the community’s requests. As the MAV videos had been falsified, so too were the Taser videos which had been significantly edited and falsified.

See Exhibit 4 Forensic Expert Gregg Stutchman’s analysis.

It is obvious that the deliberate act committed by Attorney Don Larkin of suppressing the Taser Videos from me for over 2 months provided the Palo Alto Police the tine necessary to edit the videos and destroy the taser cameras to get away with it. Therefore, just because Attorney Don Larkin eventually was forced to hand over the activation reports does not detract from the fact that he violated Penal Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and State Bar Rules 1-120 and 5-220.and caused irreparable and ongoing harm to me. Mr. Larkin’s act also constitutes a violation of Penal Codes, 32 and 182(a)(2)(3)(5) by aiding the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes. Mr. Larkin also violated Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d); § 6106, and 6128(a).

TWO: FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING CHAIN OF CUSTODY

In addition to the two Discovery Requests, my former attorney David Beavuais filed a subpoena with DDA Deborah Medved in order to obtain the evidence that Asst City Attorney Don Larkin was withholding.

Exhibit 5

In this 8/08/2008 subpoena, Mr. Beauvais and I requested the chain of custody of the Four video tapes, (TWO MAV AND TWO TASER).

On June 1, 2008 in an email to the Palo Alto City Council I requested the chain of custody of both the MAV videos and the Taser videos, pgs. 6 & 7 of Exhibit 12.

In response through the District Attorney’s office, Mr. Larkin stated that the Palo Alto Police do not retain chain of custody logs.

Mr. Larkin never provided the chain of custody of the four videos during the criminal case. Exhibit 6

In my civil suit, I again requested that the City of Palo Alto provide the chain of custody of the MAV and Taser recordings. The City, Attorney Don Larkin, once again responded by stating that the City of Palo Alto does not retain a chain of custody for MAV or Taser videos. Exhibit 7

One: The Palo Alto MAV Policy specifically states that there will be a chain of custody of the MAV recordings. Item 5 of Attachment “D” and Attachment “F” of Palo Alto City Manager Report: 462:04, See Exhibit 8. (pages 33, 34 and 39 of Exhibit 9)

Additionally, Palo Alto Police Department Property Procedures verifies that not only or the MAV recordings to have a chain of evidence but also the Taser videos, Policy 610.1; 610.1.1; 610.2; 610.2.1; 610.5; 610.5.1; 610.5.2 and 610.7 which states: “An integral part of effective management of property/evidence function is adequate control and recording of withdrawal and return of evidence. Transferring possession of evidence from one person to another is known as the chain of possession. Accurate records of each change of possession are paramount for prevention of tainted evidence, loss of evidence and for effective prosecution of a case. Properly controlled chain of possession of evidence can also prevent embarrassment to the Department and discipline of employees.” See Exhibit 10.

Mr. Larkin deliberately and knowingly lied about the chain of custody of the MAV and Taser videos.

Mr. Larkin violated State Bar Rules 1-120; 3-110; 5-220, Bus. & Prof. Code 6128(a) and Pen Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

THREE: FALSE STATEMENT REGARDING MAV HARD DRIVES

Furthermore, it should be noted that Mr. Larkin stated that the MAV system only has one Hard Drive per vehicle, page 5 of Exhibit 7 and number 37 OF Exhibit 7B.

The specifications of Kustom Signals’ MAV system purchased by the City of Palo Alto verifies that there are two hard drives per vehicle.

At the time of the March 15, 2008 incident the Palo Alto Police were still using the Hard Drives to record video and upload manually to the Server, yet, Mr. Larkin lied once again by stating that the Patrol Cars are only outfitted with one “Hard Drive.” The specifications of Kustom Signals’ MAV system purchased by the City of Palo Alto verifies that there are two hard drives per vehicle. See Exhibit 11 and 11B.

These hard drives are temper proof, yet the Palo Alto Police purged them of the March 15, 2008 incident and began over-writing the drives continually in order to destroy the original unadulterated videos.

Mr. Larkin violated State Bar Rules 1-120; 3-110; 5-220, Bus. & Prof. Code § 6128(a) and Pen Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

FOUR: SUPPRESSION OF TASER GUN ACTIVATION DATA

On April 23, 2008 and April 30 2008 my criminal defense attorney David Beauvais requested all of the evidence regarding the March 15, 2008 Tasering incident Exhibits 2A & 2B.

In a June 1, 2008 email I requested directly from the City of Palo Alto the Taser gun activation data, pg. 6 of Exhibit 12.

On June 25, 2008 the Santa Clara County District Attorney instructed my criminal defense attorney David Beauvais to subpoena the City of Palo Alto directly for evidence, Pgs. 1 & 2 of Exhibit 13.

On July 23, 2008 Palo Alto Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin sent my criminal defense attorney David Beauvais a letter stating that he would turn over the Taser gun activation data along with other evidence, Pg. 3 of Exhibit 13.

(This letter verifies Don Larkin’s direct supervision of the criminal case and control of the evidence).

According the Palo Alto Taser Use of Force Policy 308.98, the downloaded taser gun activation report will be included with the original police report Pg. 1 of Exhibit 14 and Pg. 10 of Exhibit 14B.

The Police Report was filed on March 24, 2008, Exhibit 15. The taser gun activation data from the two taser guns used was not included.

In a July 30, 2008 news article, Attorney Don Larkin goes even further in denying the taser gun activation data by stating that he will not provide the data because my attorney used the wrong process for obtaining the evidence Exhibit 16.

That is a flat out lie, my attorney requested the evidence through the proper process in his April 23 and April 30 requests as well as my June 1, 2008 request. Not only was Attorney Don Larkin violating Penal Codes § 1054.5 & § 1054.1 and State Bar Rule 5-220 but he was knowingly violating the City of Palo Alto’s own policy which demanded that the taser gun activation data be provided with the original police report.

Furthermore, according to Penal Codes § 1054.5 & § 1054.1 it is not even necessary for a defendant to request the evidence, the prosecuting attorneys and investigating agencies are to provide all evidence whether asked for or not.

Given that Mr. Larkin has not provided the accurate activation reports to this very day of December 2, 2011, it is refutable that Mr. Larkin has violated Penal Codes § 1054.5 & § 1054.1 and State Bar Rule 5-220.

Mr. Larkin made false statements to me, my attorney and the general public.

(Please keep in mind that the Court’s have concluded that the prosecution team includes the Prosecutor and the investigating agency as such, this direction to subpoena was issued with the knowledge and consent of the City of Palo Alto which is supported by Attorney Don Larkin sending Supervising Deputy District Attorney Javier Alcala a copy of his correspondence denying the evidence, Pg. 18 of Exhibit 1 & Pg. 3 of Exhibit 13)

The Taser gun activation data provided was falsified, Exhibits 17, 18, 19 and complete evidence at: Exhibit 300.

It is obvious that the deliberate act committed by Attorney Don Larkin of suppressing the Taser gun activation data from me for over 4 months provided the Palo Alto Police the tine necessary to edit the activation and tamper with the taser guns’ data ports to get away with it. Therefore, just because Attorney Don Larkin eventually was forced to hand over the activation reports does not take away from the fact that he violated Pen. Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and State Bar Rules 1-120 and 5-220.and caused irreparable and ongoing harm to me. Mr. Larkin’s act also constitutes a violation of Penal Codes, 32 and 182(a)(2)(3)(5) by aiding the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes. Mr. Larkin also violated Bus. & Prof. Codes § 6068(a)(c)(d), § 6106, and § 6128(a) and caused irreparable and ongoing harm to me.

FIVE: KNOWINGLY USING FALSIFED TASER GUN ACTIVATION DATA TO MISLEAD THE COURT AND PLAINTIFF

Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin supervised attorney Steven Sherman in regards to handling Civil Case C09-02655. On September 3, 2010 in response to a Discovery Request, Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns provided Officers Manuel Temores’ and Kelly Burger’s taser guns weapon summaries which included all of the firing data. On December 17, 2010 I downloaded the taser guns directly and determined that a significant amount of taser firings were missing from the taser guns when compared to Taser gun Weapon Summary/Activation Reports provided by Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns, See Item #4 of Exhibit 20, Exhibit 21 and Pgs. 24 through 39 of Court Document 133-6/ Exhibit 21B.

On May 12, Attorney Steven Sherman under the supervision of Donald Larkin submitted a third copy of the taser gun weapon summary/activation reports for Officers Temores’ and Burgers’ taser guns, Exhibit 22 pgs. 8-9 of Court Document 156 and Exhibit 23 Court Document 156-1.

This third copy is also contradicted by the two previous versions of the Taser gun Activation Data, See Pgs. 7-11 of Exhibit 24/Court Document 160 and Pgs. 39 through 58 of Exhibit 24/Court Document 160.

From Lines 19 through 28 of pg. 6 of Exhibit 30/ Court Document 176 U.S. Federal Judge Lucy Koh also verified that taser gun activation data is missing. This is significant for it is impossible to erase taser gun activation data from a taser gun’s Data Port Pg. 15 of Exhibit 31. Judge Koh verified that the taser guns have been tampered with yet she refused to hold anyone accountable. I will go into more about Judge Koh’s actions which covered up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police later, for now it should be pointed out that Judge Koh failed to address the fact that Attorney Steven Sherman falsely stated to the Courts that we only downloaded the 2008 taser gun data on December 17, 2008 when in fact we downloaded all of the data available and no data from 2007 was present, lines 14 through 18 of Pg. 9 of Exhibit 22/Court Document 156 and Exhibit 32 and Pgs. 6 through 11 of Exhibit 24.

I would also like to point out at this time that Andrew Hinz the Director of Technical Services of Taser International admitted over the course of three separate declarations to the Court that the Taser Cameras that recorded the March 15, 2008 incident were sent to Taser International and destroyed prior to the beginning of my criminal Pre-Trial Examination on December 1, 2008, Exhibits 33, 34, 35 and 36.

Furthermore, Andrew Hinz stated on December 21, 2010 that Taser Camera V07-065373 was sent to the Palo Alto Police on November 26, 2008 and had never been returned to Taser International for repair work or analysis, Pg. 5 of Exhibit 34/Pgs. 2 & 3 of Court Document 108-1.

During the June 30, 2011 Sanctions Hearing in Judge Lucy Koh’s Court Room, Palo Alto Police Lieutenant Sandra Brown stated that Taser Camera Taser Camera V07-065373 was sent to Taser International for repair contradicting Andrew Hinz’s Declaration.

A Transcript of the June 30, 2011 hearing can be obtained from the Court and Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz, 415-722-7045, leomank@gmail.com.

On May 17, 2011 I informed Palo Alto Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin that attorney Steven Sherman submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the court in order to conceal the previously submitted falsified taser gun activation data., See Exhibits 28 and 29.

Attorney Don Larkin knew and knows that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and Attorney Steven Sherman submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the Court on two separate occasions and has done absolutely nothing about it, lines 11-17 of pg. 8 and lines 19-21 of pg. 9 of Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 23.

Mr. Larkin has condoned the use of falsified taser gun activation data to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and to wrongfully incriminate me of a crime using falsified evidence.

On June 2, 2008 Former Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson and then Assistant Police Chief Dennis Burns, (Burns is the current Police Chief), submitted an official report to the Palo Alto City Council regarding the March 15, 2008 incident, TASER UPDATE AND SECOND QUARTERELY REPORT-CMR: 263:08. In this report, Lynne Johnson and Dennis Burns state that only ONE taser gun was used on March 15, 2008 when in fact two taser guns were used on March 15, 2008.

This is further evidence of the attempt to conceal the Taser gun activation data and taser videos by Palo Alto City Attorney’s office working with the Palo Alto Police Department. Interestingly, on the very same day that Johnson and Burns submitted the report to the Palo Alto City Council, Lynne Johnson sent out an email to members of the public admitting that TWO taser guns were used contradicting her official report to the Palo Alto City Council. See Exhibit 37.

This act of knowingly using falsified taser gun activation further corroborates Mr. Larkins initial involvement in aiding the Palo Alto Police attempt to use falsified videos and taser gun activation data to incriminate a citizen, me, of a crime in violation of Penal Codes § 32; § 132; § 134 and § 182(a)(2)(3)(5).

Additionally, Mr. Larkin has violated State Bar Rules 1-120 (by working with Attorney Steven Sherman in the deception); 3-110; 5-200((A)(B)(C) and 5-220 (by not providing the accurate taser gun activation data); in addition to Bus. & Prof. Codes § 6068 (a)(c)(d); § 6106 and § 6128(a).

SIX: SUPPRESSING THE ORIGINAL MAV VIDEOS

I had requested that the City of Palo Alto provide the original MAV recordings containing the original date of modification which they initially stated that they provided. Attorney Steven Sherman attempted to deceive me by writing on some of the MAV DVD’s that he sent me that they contained the Date of Modification of March 15, 2008 when in fact they did not, Pgs. 3 and 4 of Exhibit 20/Court Document 143 and Exhibit 38.

On October 19, 2008 I went to the Palo Alto Police Department expecting to obtain a copy of the original MAV recordings, however the Palo Alto City Attorney’s office, Don Larkin, refused to provide me a copy of the original MAV recordings claiming that an imbedded watermark in the videos was “proprietary.” This was the first time that I was informed that the copies provided to me did not have the watermark.

Don Larkin through his representative, Attorney Steven Sherman denied me a copy of the MAV recordings containing the original Date and Time of Modification and containing the watermark, See Pgs. 10-13 of Exhibit 39/Pgs. 6-7 of Court Document 59 and Exhibit 40/Court Documents 65 & 66.

I accepted Don Larkin’s justification for denying me the original MAV recordings containing the watermark; however after submitting a subsequent Discovery Request I determined that Attorney Steven Sherman and Don Larkin had lied to me regarding their justification for denying me the MAV recordings containing original Date of Modification and the watermark. See Exhibits 41 and Pgs. 1-5 of Exhibit 42.

In the end U.S. Federal Judge Paul S. Grewal granted my Motion to Compel and the defendants were forced to provide me copies containing the watermark, Exhibit 43/Court Document 144.

I pointed out in my Sanctions Motion against Attorney Steven Sherman that he knowingly made false statements regarding the above to the Court and me, however once again Judge Koh covered up Mr. Sherman’s violations.

See Item 3 of Exhibit 20/Court Document 143 and “THIRD ACCUSATION” of Exhibit 44/Court Document 160.

Judge Koh concluded that, “C. Claim 3

Plaintiff’s third allegation similarly claims that Mr. Sherman made misrepresentations in stating that the watermark on the MAV recordings was proprietary in nature, and therefore Defendants could not produce to Plaintiff MAV recordings containing the watermark.

In his response, Mr. Sherman explains that he did not intend to suggest that the watermark itself was proprietary, but rather that the watermark can only be read or verified using proprietary software. This does appear to be the nature of Mr. Sherman’s statement, only part of which was cited by Plaintiff in his brief. Mr. Sherman’s statement reads:

At this time, plaintiff’s request to receive actual ‘original MAV recordings containing the digital watermark’ infringes on Kustom Signal’s proprietary software and MAV system created for police use. Any reading of the data that is encrypted so that the watermark can be read, has been created by software engineers for proprietary licensing; including the watermark software to read the watermark encryption.

Def.’s Br. re: Dispute over Obtaining Original MAV Recordings Containing Digital Watermark at 2, ECF No. 65 (emphasis added). While Plaintiff claims that he has been able to watch the MAV recordings containing the watermark, he does not contend that he has been able to read or verify the watermark without access to proprietary software.

Accordingly, it does not appear that Mr. Sherman misrepresented the proprietary nature of the software used to read the watermark and verify the authenticity of the watermarked recordings. Because Plaintiff does not have access to the proprietary software required to verify or read the watermarks in the MAV recordings produced to him, the Court has ordered Defendants to allow Plaintiff to view and verify the watermarks using the proprietary software at the Palo Alto Police Department. See Interim Order Regarding Pl.’s Mot. to Take Appropriate Action at 2, ECF No. 166.

See “C. Claim 3” of Exhibit 30/Court Document 176.

Judge Koh completely fails to address the allegation made against Attorney Steven Sherman and the Defendants as she fails to accurately quote and cite the entirety of Steven Sherman’s statements and actions.

FACT ONE: Attorneys Steven Sherman and Don Larkin refused to provide the MAV recordings containing the watermark which necessitated a Motion to Compel them to provide the MAV recordings.

FACT TWO: The reason given for the refusal to provide the MAV recordings containing the watermark by Attorneys Steven Sherman and Don Larkin was that the watermark was proprietary, See Pgs. 10-13 of Exhibit 39/Pgs. 6-7 of Court Document 59 and Exhibit 40/Court Documents 65 & 66.

FACT THREE: The watermark was not and is not proprietary.

FACT FOUR: Steven Sherman stated to the Court and Plaintiff, “Response – Another explanation is that Plaintiff misunderstood my statement. I have never contended that the watermark itself is proprietary,” Lines 12-13 of Pg. 7 of Exhibit 46 and Court Document 156.

IF THIS STATEMENT WERE TRUE, THEN WHY DID STEVEN SHERMAN AND DON LARKIN REFUSE TO PROVIDE THE MAV VIDEOS CONTAINING THE WATERMARK IN THE FIRST PLACE?

FACT FIVE: Steven Sherman stated to the Court and Plaintiff, “At this time, plaintiff’s request to receive actual ‘original MAV recordings containing the digital watermark’ infringes on Kustom Signals’s proprietary software and MAV system created for police use,”

lines 17-19 of Pg. 2 of Court Document 65/Pg. 4 of Exhibit 40.

Steven Sherman stated to the Court and Plaintiff, “In order to give plaintiff an additional copy, in the format he seeks, it would expose Kustom Signal’s software to exposure and possible competition obtaining it,” lines 1-2 of Pg. 4 of Court Document 65/ Pg. 7 of Exhibit 40.

FACT SIX: Steven Sherman and Don Larkin deliberately and knowingly lied to the court by stating that he never contended that the watermark was proprietary.

On October 22, 2010 Attorney Steven Sherman stated:

“At this time, plaintiff’s request to receive actual ‘original MAV recordings containing the digital watermark’ infringes on Kustom Signals’s proprietary software”

On May 12, 2011 Attorney Steven Sherman stated:

“I have never contended that the watermark itself is proprietary,”

Judge Koh completely fails to identify the fact that Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman refused to provide the MAV recordings containing the watermark, (NOT THE SOFTWARE TO ANALYZE THE WATERMARK) for I was not asking for the software to analyze the watermark.

Mr. Sherman does not act on his own accord but at the direction and approval of Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin, as such the above allegations apply equally to Attorney Don Larkin for ultimately it was and is Mr. Larkin consenting to the false statements and suppression of the evidence by directing Attorney Steven Sherman what to do at all times.

Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin was well informed of the allegations of the falsified evidence as early as May 13, 2008 through November 10, 2010 and up to the present, Exhibits 47 through 52. In a Discovery request in June of 2010 I requested that the City of Palo Alto to identify the missing video footage attached to the emails sent to Mr. Larkin on November 20, 2011 and Mr. Sherman on July 14, 2011, however Mr. Sherman and the Defendants refused to provide that information at that time, See Exhibit 49.

Mr. Larkin’s act constitutes a violation of

Pen. Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and State Bar Rules 1-120, 5-200((A)(B)(C) and 5-220. Mr. Larkin’s act also constitutes a violation of Penal Codes, § 32, § 132, § 134 and § 182(a)(2)(3)(5) by aiding the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes. Mr. Larkin also violated Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d), § 6106, and 6128(a).

SEVEN: DESTRUCTION OF BICYCLE HELMENT

Attorney Don Larkin condoned and supervised the destruction of Palo Alto Police Officer April Wagner’s Helmet in order to cover up her false statements that the helmet had been damaged, See Exhibit 53. Wagner’s false statements are corroborated by her other false statement in which she states she did not draw her gun and aim it at me, Ciampi, when in fact she did, See Exhibit 54.

Mr. Larkin’s act constitutes a violation of Penal Codes § 32; § 141(a); § 182(a)(2)(3)(5); § 1054.5, § 1054.1 and Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. Additionally Mr. Larkin has violated Cal State Bar Rules 1-120; 3-110 and 5-220. Furthermore, Mr. Larkin’s acts constitute a violation of Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d), § 6106, and 6128(a).

EIGHT: FALSE STATEMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF TASER PROBES

On February 8, 2010 Attorneys Don Larkin and Steven Sherman stated that Officer Temores did not fire probes from his taser gun and therefore there was no evidence to be provided according to a Discovery Request, Exhibit 55.

On September 3, 2010 Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns stated that Officer Temores’ Taser probes and Taser Cartridge were destroyed, Exhibit 56, in violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy 610 Exhibit 10.

Yet Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger stated on March 15, 2008, the date of the incident that Officer Temores fired probes from his taser gun, and all of the evidence points to the fact that there were four taser probes fired from two separate firings and the video footage of the second firing was removed from Temores’ MAV and Taser videos, See Exhibit 57.

Mr. Larkin has falsely stated that only two taser probes were discharged from one taser gun and supervised the destruction of Officer Temores’ taser probes and taser cartridge in order to conceal the fact that the there were two firings and that the video footage of the second firing has been removed from Temores’ MAV and Taser videos as well as his Taser gun Data Port.

Mr. Larkin has knowingly and intentionally participated in the destruction and suppression of exculpatory evidence, the taser probes, taser cartridge, AFIDS, and taser wires.

Mr. Larkin’s act constitutes a violation of Penal Codes § 32; § 141(a); § 182(a)(2)(3)(5); § 1054.5, § 1054.1 and Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. Additionally Mr. Larkin has violated Cal State Bar Rules 1-120; 3-110 and 5-220. Furthermore, Mr. Larkin’s acts constitute a violation of Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d), § 6106, and 6128(a).

NINE: SHOWING THE VIDEOS TO THE MEDIA

On January 18, 2011 Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin showed the media, the public, the videos of the March 15, 2008 incident. This is extremely reprehensible because the videos have been edited and falsified falsely portraying what occurred in order to vilify me, See Exhibit 58.

There is no doubt that this act was an attempt to prejudice the civil case against me.

Cal. State Bar Rule Rule 5-120 (A) Trial Publicity states

“A member who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the member knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Exhibit 58 is prima facia evidence of Mr. Larkin acknowledging that he violated Cal. State Bar Rule 5-120(A).

TEN: FALSELY STATED THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE AN EXPERT

On October 28, 2010 Palo Alto City Attorney Don Larkin stated to me that he would be willing to provide an expert to analyze the videos. I took him up on his offer on October 30, 2010 however Mr. Larkin never responded. Then on July 14, 2011 Attorney Steven Sherman stated to numerous members of the public including the FBI that I never took him and Mr. Larkin up on their offer. Mr. Sherman and Mr Larkin falsely stated to me that they would provide an expert and then falsely stated to the public that I never took them up on their offer, See Exhibit 59.

Attorney Steven Sherman’s statement to the public falsely claiming that I did not take him and Mr. Larkin up on their offer to provide an expert is prima facie evidence of a violation of State Bar Rule 5-120(A).

ELEVEN: BURGER’S PERJURY

In order to give an account of one of the gaps in time in his Taser video, Officer Kelly Burger testified that he placed his taser gun back in his holster and drew it a second time during the March 15, 2008 incident. This is false testimony, as both Temores’ MAV video and Burger’s Taser video verify that Burger never placed his taser gun back into his holster after he drew it the first and only time. Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin has covered up this fact and has actually endorsed the subsequent promotion of Officer Burger, See Exhibit 60. Not only has Attorney Don Larkin condoned the promotion of Officer Burger but also of Office April Wagner whom I have already proven has committed perjury about her bicycle helmet and drawing her hand-gun.

By condoning the use of falsified testimony by his subordinate officer in order to further the wrongful prosecution of me while using falsified evidence demonstrates that Mr. Larkin has violated Penal Codes 32 and 182(a)(2)(3)(5) in aiding the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes. Mr. Larkin also violated Bus. and Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d), § 6106, and 6128(a) and Cal. State Bar Rule 5-200(A).

TWELVE: LIED ABOUT GOVERNMENT CODE 995.9

From line 22 through 26 of Pg. 2 of Court Document 204/Exhibit 61, Mr. Larkin stated, “However, should the City agree to a settlement agreement that specifically authorizes an action against Andrew Hinz and Warren Page, we would expect a cross-complaint for indemnification pursuant to Government Code section 995.9, which authorizes a public agency to indemnify a witness who testifies on behalf of the agency.”

This is a very slick use of words. Mr. Larkin states, “we would expect a cross-complaint,” inferring that Andrew Hinz and Warren Page could file a cross-complaint pursuant to 995.9 without actually stating that 995.9 provides authority to bring a cross-complaint. However by stating that they would “expect a cross-complaint” the intent is to cause the reader to believe that Gov. Code 995.9 actually provides the authority to do so even though it does not. This is also an intentional act to mislead the Court and Plt as to the true meaning of Gov. Code 995.9 in order to induce Plt. to agree to Defs.’ fraudulent Settlement Agreement.

Mr. Larkin was asserting to the Court and Plaintiff, me, that Government Code 995.9 authorized a third party, Andrew Hinz and Warren Page, to file complaint against the City of Palo Alto for providing their falsified expert reports to support the City of Palo Alto’s cover up of the falsified videos and taser gun activation data and were using this as justification to include Andrew Hinz and Warren Page in the Settlement Agreement.

During the September 14, 2011 Hearing, Defs.’ Attorneys Don Larkin and Steven Sherman asserted to the Court and Plt. that Gov. Code 995.9 would provide Andrew Hinz, Taser International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals the lawful authority to file a cross-complaint against the City of Palo Alto requiring the City to indemnify them should Plt. file a lawsuit against Andrew Hinz, Taser International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals.

This was and is a false statement for Gov. Code 995.9 does not provide any authority to any person or entity to file a civil suit against any public entity, Gov. Code 995.9 provides permission to public entities to defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify any witness who has testified on behalf of the public entity in any criminal, civil, or administrative action. Additionally Gov. Code 995.9 actually prohibits a public entity from defending or indemnifying a witness if the testimony giving rise to the action against the witness was false in any material respect, or was otherwise not given by the witness with a good faith belief in its truth, which would be the circumstance of any action brought by Plt. against Andrew Hinz, Taser International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals.

Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman knowingly made a false statement and a false representation of the meaning of Gov. Code 995.9 to the Court and Plt. on September 14, 2011 in order to mislead the Court and Plt to the true meaning of Gov. Code 995.9 witn the intent and motive to defraud Plt. of his lawfully held rights and claims against Andrew Hinz, Taser International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals by inducing Plt go accept the City’s fraudulent settlement agreement, See ¶¶s 6 through 14 of Plts.’ Decl. The above act constitutes a violation of Cal. Bus. And Prof. Codes § 6128(a) § 6068 (d) and § 6106 and California State Bar Rules 5-200 (A)(B)(C).

The question is, will Judge Koh address this self-evident prima facie false statement made by attorney Don Larkin and hold him accountable? See ¶¶s 15 through 27 of Plts.’ Decl.

See Item 6 of Exhibit 62/Court Document 209.

The answer is no, Judge Koh did not address the self-evident prima facie false statement made during the September 14, 2011 hearing for Judge Koh herself attempted during that Hearing to mislead me as to the meaning of Government Code 995.9. See Lines 25-28 of Pg. 7 and lines 1 through 26 of Pg. 8 of Court Document 209/Exhibit 63.

Mr. Larkin violated Cal. State Bar Rules 5-200(B)(C) by deliberately misquoting the language of Government Code 995.9 in order to deceive the Court and Plaintiff, me, as to the true meaning of the law. Additionally, Mr. Sherman’s and Mr. Larkin’s act constitutes a violation of Cal. State Bar Rule 1-120 by helping each other in the commission of the violation as well as Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068d), § 6106, and 6128(a).

A transcript of the September 14, 2011 hearing can be obtained from Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge, (Phone/ 408-287-4580),

EMAIL: (Lee-Anne_Shortridge@cand.uscourts.gov), for $116.80.

If the California State Bar in not able to obtain the transcript I will be willing to provide the transcript to the State Bar to corroborate and verify my allegations.

However, before I do, I request that the State Bar go on record and inform me that the Bar will discipline Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman for misleading me in regards to Government Code 995.9, should the transcript verify my allegation as set forth here for I do not want to spend $116.80 if doing so will not result in any discipline.

THIRTEEN: COERCED PLAINTIFF TO SIGN FRAUDULENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On August 9, 2011 the City of Palo Alto and Plaintiff, me, agreed to settle Case No. C09-02655. Subsequently, Attorney Don Larkin attempted to include Taser International, Andrew Hinz, Kustom Signals and Warren Page into the written Settlement agreement even though these third parties were not a part of the lawsuit nor were they represented at the Settlement Conference. When I refused to sign Mr. Larkin’s fraudulent Settlement Agreement, Mr. Larkin attempted to coerce me to sign the Fraudulent Agreement be threatening Monetary Sanctions against me, See Exhibit 64 and Pgs. 2-5 of Exhibit 65 Court Document 200.

This prompted me to submit my own Motion to Enforce the Settlement according to what was placed on the record as well as sanctions against Attorney Don Larkin, See Exhibits 65, 61 and 62.

Attorney Don Larkin’s email threatening Sanctions against me, Exhibit 64, is prima facie evidence of Attorney Don Larkin violating Cal. State Bar Rule 5-100(A).

I assume in order to protect Attorney Don Larkin from being disciplined, the State Bar may refer to Judge Koh’s findings, Lines 25-28 of Pg. 7 and lines 1 through 26 of Pg. 8 of Court Document 209/Exhibit 63.

Judge Koh cites Verdona v. Cal. Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection, No. 99-CV-5244-MMC, 2002 WL 1578879, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2002)). in an attempt to cover up Attorney Don Larkin’s extortive tactic. Judge Koh cites, “setting a deadline by which to accept a settlement offer is not a wrongful act” and that “hard bargaining is acceptable, even desirable, in our economic system.” There is nothing of merit in Judge Koh’s justification from Verdona v. Cal. Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection, that refutes attorney Don Larkin’s unlawful extortive tactic and violation of State Bar Rule 5-100(A).

In citing this case to justify a response in order to protect attorney Don Larkin for being held accountable, Judge Koh herself violated State Bar Rule 5-200(A) and Bus. & Prof. Code 6128(a) by misusing case law and miss-leading me.

Judge Koh continued:

“Moreover, a sister court in this district has noted that “setting a deadline by which to accept a settlement offer is not a wrongful act” and that “hard bargaining is acceptable, even desirable, in our economic system.” Verdona v. Cal. Dep’t of Forestry and Fire Protection, No. 99-CV-5244-MMC, 2002 WL 1578879, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2002)).

By stating that they would move to enforce the settlement agreement and seek sanctions if Plaintiff did not sign Defendants’ proposed written agreement, Defendants merely gave Plaintiff “a voluntary choice of perfectly legitimate alternatives.” Id. at *5. Moreover, the Court finds that Defendants’ insistence on imposing their definition of “City” in their proposed written settlement agreement, while incorrect, was not unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time,” Lines 9-18 of pg. 8 of Court Doc. 210/Exhibit 63.

Judge Koh is wrongly claiming that coercion, a violation of Cal. State Bar Rule 5-100(A) is nothing more than hard bargaining.

Plt. has presented self-evident prima facie evidence that attorney Don Larkin violated Cal State Bar Rule 5-100(A) and Cal. Bus. and Prof. Codes 6068(d), 6106, and 6128(a) when Mr. Larkin threatened to seek administrative, disciplinary and monetary damages against Plt. Ciampi in order to coerce Plaintiff into signing Mr. Larkin’s fraudulent agreement, which is and would be an advantage to Mr. Larkin and the Defs. whom Mr. Larkin represents, pgs. 3, 4 and 5 of Court Doc. 200. By signing Mr. Larkin’s fraudulent agreement, Plt. Ciampi would have lost valuable rights and claims against Taser International and others.

Mr. Larkin responds by stating, “In fact, a motion to enforce the settlement agreement is the proper means to require a party to sign a settlement agreement agreed to in a settlement on the record,” lines 26-27 of pg. 4 of Court Doc. 208. Mr. Larkin’s statement is true, but that is not the act and that is not the offense of which Mr. Larkin committed.

The act of filing a motion and seeking sanctions is perfectly legal and ethical, what is not ethical or legal is to “threaten” a person with some negative consequence in order to compel the person to perform some act against their will even if the negative consequence is legal. (And Judge Koh failed to acknowledge this fact in order to conceal the violations committed by Attorney Don Larki)..

By way of analogy, if a newspaper reporter obtains information about a public official having an adulterous affair, it is perfectly legal for that reporter to reveal to the public the very embarrassing and damaging affair. Likewise, it would be lawful for Mr. Larkin to file a Motion and Sanctions with the court in order to get Plt. to sign Mr. Larkin’s written settlement agreement, just as Plt. has done.

However, if the reporter were to communicate to the public official that he knows about the affair and threatens the public official by stating that he will reveal the affair unless the public official signs off on a contract giving the reporter a financially lucrative contract then the act is illegal. Likewise, by threatening to take away money and claims from Plt. Ciampi while simultaneously threatening administrative and disciplinary action against Plt. Mr. Larkin violated the law and State Bar Rules.

As can bee seen it is not the act of revealing the affair or seeking sanctions that are illegal, it is the act of “threatening” to reveal the affair or seek sanctions that is illegal which is what Mr. Larkin did and the prima facie evidence is there is in black and white as Exh. 922 of Court Doc. 200 and delineated pgs. 3-5 of Court Doc. 200.

See Pgs. 12 through 14 of Court Document 209/Exhibit 62.

As can be clearly seen and understood, the California State Bar should not accept Judge Koh’s determinations and rulings regarding the violations committed by Attorneys Don Larkin and Steven Sherman.

In addition to violating Cal. State Bar Rule 5-100(A), Attorney Don Larkin violated Penal Codes, § 518; § 519; § 522 and § 523.

FOURTEEN: ATTORNEY DON LARKIN KNOWS THAT THE VIDEOS AND TASER GUN ACTIVATION DATA HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH AND HAS CONCEALED THIS EVIDENCE.

I have proven that officers under Attorney Don Larkin’s supervision have:

Made false statements in the police reports;

Made false statements in testimony in Court under oath;

Made false statements under penalty of perjury in Discovery Requests;

Made false statements to the media and the public;

Made false statements to the Palo Alto City Council in official reports;

Destroyed evidence; and

Edited, altered and falsified evidence.

all done with the motive and intent to maintain a fraudulent criminal prosecution against me in violation of Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068 (a)(c)(d); 6106; and 6128(a).

SEE EXHIBIT 300, evidence of all of the above.

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

EVIDENCE

VIDEOS

Palo Alto Police Officer Manuel Temores testified during the Preliminary Examination in December 2008 that I got up off the ground during the altercation and went back down to the ground a second time. On March 15, 2008 Palo Alto Police Officer April Wagner wrote in her statement in the police report that I went down to the ground two separate time getting up off the ground in between. At no time am I seen going down to the ground two separate times and getting up off the ground in between on Temores’ MAV video. Conclusion: Two Police Officers at the scene have asserted that the video footage of me, Ciampi, getting up off the ground is missing from Temores’ MAV video.

ATTORNEY DON LARKIN ATTEMPTED TO USE FALSIFIED VIDEOS TO PUT ME INTO PRISON. IT’S DISPICABLE AND REPREHENSIBLE ON NUMEROUS LEVELS.

Attorney Don Larkin has violated Penal Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and State Bar Rules 1-120 and 5-220.and caused irreparable and ongoing harm to me. Mr. Larkin’s acts also constitute a violation of Penal Codes, 32, 132, 134, 141(a) and 182(a)(2)(3)(5) by aiding the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes. Mr. Larkin also violated Bus. & Prof. Codes 6068(a)(c)(d); § 6106, and 6128(a).

FIFETEEN: SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

Attorney Don Larkin failed to provide the toxicology report to me at any time during my criminal case. See Exhibit 77. This toxicology report taken by the Palo Alto Police would have been beneficial to my defense during the Preliminary Examination from December 1, 2008 through December 17, 2008 for it proved that I was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of my arrest. Mr. Larkin’s act constitutes a violation of Cal. State Bar Rule 5-220 and Penal Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

SIXTEEN: SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE

Palo Alto Police Sgt. Michael Honiker’ made an audio recording of me while we were at the Stanford hospital on March 15, 2008. Attorney Don Larkin failed to provide a copy of this recording to me at any time during my criminal case. See Exhibit 78. This audio recording made by the Palo Alto Police, though edited, still would have been beneficial to my defense during the Preliminary Examination from December 1, 2008 through December 17, 2008 for it proved my account of the events which happened. In denying me this evidence during my criminal case, Mr. Larkin violated Cal. State Bar Rule 5-220 and Penal Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

SEVENTEEN: SUPPRESSION AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

On August 29, 2008 Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns too the computer Hard Drive in which all taser videos were downloaded into and placed it into evidence in his office under lock and key in order to turn it over to the Santa Clara County Crime Lab, See Exhibit 83. I requested to inspect this Hard Drive, HP, serial number 2UB424055T which I granted. However during the initial inspection of October 19, 2008 I was informed that the Hard Drive had not been retained in evidence was being used in traffic being overwritten thousands of times in an attempt to cover up the original taser videos.

Mr Larkin and Police Chief Dennis Burns knew that it was possible for a recovery specialist to recover the original videos from the hard drive and that the best way to ensure that that does not occur is to overwrite the Hard Drive as much as possible.

This was and is an intentional act to suppress exculpatory evidence during my criminal case a violation of Penal Codes, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 and after my criminal case it was and is a violation of State Bar Rule 5-220.

EIGHTEEN: FALSE STATEMENT REGARDING THE MAV VIDEO CONTAINING THE WATERMARK

On May 12, 2011 Attorney Steven Sherman conveyed to the Court and me Attorney Don Larkin’s assertion that the MAV videos that contain the watermark do not play on a computer.

“As noted above, a watermarked copy of the recordings cannot be made that would

allow an individual to view the recordings on a computer or DVD player.” Lines 15-16 of Exhibit 46/Court Document 156.

This is a false statement. Provided as DVD #6 of Exhibit 300 is a copy of Officer Temores’ MAV recording that ostensibly contains the watermark, for this is a copy in which Judge Grewal ordered the Defendants to produce, Exhibit 79/Court Document 144. This copy of Temores’ MAV video containing the watermark plays on a computer using Windows Media Player.

Mr. Sherman and Mr. Larkin violated Cal. State Bar Rules 5-200(A)(B) and Bus. & Prof. Codes § 6068(d); § 6106 and § 6128(a).

NINETEEN: ASSISTING IN VIOLATIONS

Regardless of Mr. Sherman being the individual who was submitting many of the documents to the Court in the civil case, Mr. Larkin as the City’s Attorney supervising the Palo Alto Police and Attorney Steven Sherman was and is the lead attorney in both the criminal case and civil case in which he supervised and condoned all of the unlawful acts. As such any allegation in which the State Bar finds Mr. Sherman in violation of, the State Bar can also find Mr. Larkin just as culpable under Bar Rule 1-120. The same can be said for Mr. Larkin’s actions during the criminal case by assisting Attorneys Gary Baum, Deborah Medved and Javier Alcala.

JUDGE LUCY H. KOH’S COVER UP

More reasons why to not cite U.S. Federal Judge Lucy H. Koh’s decisions and rulings when evaluating whether or not Attorney Don Larkin violated the law and State Bar rules.

Judge Koh refused to withdraw from the case even though I demonstrated that she had a conflict of interest by formerely working with the Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor, Michael Gennaco, Court Documents 50 and 53. Judge Koh’s partiality for the Defendants and prejudice against Plaintiff, me, exposed itself in Judge Koh’s ruling on the Summary Judgment.

Judge Koh used fabricated evidence, “Officer Safety” in order to dismiss my Federal Claims and grant Summary Judgment for the Defendants, See lines 6 through 22 of Pg. 3 of Exhibit 66/Court Document 159.

I requested that Judge Koh identify the evidence in which she obtains the “officer safety” justification, lines 16-18 of Pg. 3 of Exhibit 66/Court Document 159, however she refused to provide that evidence, Exhibit 67/Court Document 162.

After receiving no response I filed another motion for reconsideration pointing out the flaws in Judge Koh’s ruling, Pgs. 1 through 11 of Exhibit 68/Court Document 163.

Once again Judge Koh refused to acknowledge or address the evidence I provided to her and simply lied in ruling refusing to reconsider her bogus Summary Judgment ruling, Exhibit 69/Court Document 164.

Judge Koh’s refusal demonstrates that there was and is not merit to her dismissal using fabricated evidence. It also demonstrates Judge Koh’s has absolutely no integrity or credibility in her ruling against me.

Judge Koh also cited in her decision to dismiss my Federal Claims by falsely stating that I did not cite any relevant case law, lines 22-24 of Pg. 3 of Exhibit 66/Court Document 159.

Once again this was another false statement made by Judge Koh to provide unjustified reasons to dismiss my federal claims for I cited numerous case law, lines 24-28 of Pg. 3 of Exhibit 66/Court Document 159.

Judge Koh refused to acknowledge the existence of these citations of case law.

As a result of Judge Koh’s blatant refusal to accept the facts as well as other violations I filed a Motion to disqualify her and vacate the Summary Judgment, See ExhibitC 70 through 73/Court Documents 169, 184, 187 and 192.

See Exhibit 74 for Excerpts.

Attorney Steven Sherman submitted his Declaration and Exhibits in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment 4 days after the dispositive motion deadline. Additionally, the Exhibits were never secured with the Court Clerk, they were sent by Federal Express directly to Judge Lucy H. Koh.

Judge Lucy H. Koh refused to file and secure the Exhibits with the Court Clerk in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 5(d)(2)(B), See Lines 3 through 28 of Pg. 4 of Exhibit 70/Court Document 169 and Pgs. 5 through 7 of Exhibit 70/Court Document 169.

To this day, Judge Koh has not secured the exhibits with the Court Clerk.

Perhaps this has to do with the appearance of Judge Koh falsely stating what evidence the Court has received from the Defendants and Attorney Steven Sherman. Mr. Sherman stated in court on April 21, 2011 and June 30, 2011 that he provided the Court the DA’s synched version of the MAV recordings, however Judge Koh has stated that she never received the DA’s synched version of the MAV recordings. We cannot find out, because Judge Koh has refused to allow inspection of the exhibits she has hidden away from the Court Clerk, the Courts and the Public in violation of Civil Procedures 5(d)(2)(B).

“The declaration submitted by Mr. Sherman in support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion does not list a synched video as an exhibit, see id., and none was received by the Court. Mr. Sherman was simply mistaken when he represented that a synched video had been submitted. The Court finds it troubling that Mr. Sherman seems to believe that he submitted an exhibit that he did not in fact submit,” Lines 15 through 20 of Pg. 11 of Exhibit 30/Court Document 176.

Notice how Mr. Sherman uses obfuscation to worm his way out of either acknowledging that he lied to the Court in regards to what videos he submitted or re-assert that which he had stated on two separate occasions.

“As far as viewing the actual incident itself, the D.A.’s video is the easiest video to

watch in that it matches/synchronizes Officer Burger’s audio with Officer Temores’ video. The District Attorney’s combined video uses both videos of Officers Temores and Burger, and the focus appears to be on the incident itself. Since the Defendants had no involvement in the creation of the D.A.’s video (clearly marked as such) how long the video plays is nothing the Defendants had anything to do with. The Defendants have been using the D.A.’s video as a matter of convenience since it allows the viewing of the entire incident on one/single video and it confirmed the “no tampering” position of the Defendants.” Lines 20-27 of Pg. 2 of Exhibit 75/Court Document 174.

Mr. Sherman’s statement, “how long the video plays is nothing the Defendants had anything to do with,” has absolutely nothing to do with the allegation that Judge Koh was concealing the fact that Mr. Sherman provided the DA’s version of the MAV recordings to the Court, which Mr. Sherman fails to address in his response to the Sanctions Motion.

During Judge Koh’s Senate Confirmation Hearings, Senator Jeff Sessions quoted Judge Koh, “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.”

VIDEO OF SENATE HEARING: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDbUsnrfuLo

Judge Koh’s statements regarding my case:

April 21, 2011 Hearing and May 11, 2011 Decision

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 suspicionto 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.”

JUDGE KOH CONCEALED THE CRIMES OF THE PALO ALTO POLICE AND ATTORNEYS STEVEN SHERMAN AND DON LARKIN.

After Judge Koh wrongly granted Summary Judgment to the Defendants, and then refused to strike and vacate her decision I was left with no choice but to settle. Judge Koh had placed me in an un-winnable situation with the three remaining claims left as she would not have allowed be to present evidence demonstrating the destruction and altering of the taser guns, taser cameras, MAV cameras and videos.

Judge Koh was going to allow the City of Palo Alto to use falsified videos and taser gun activation data against me in a court of law without allowing me to challenge those videos and taser gun activation data.

The Palo Alto Police and Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin have gotten away with attempting to place a citizen in prison while using edited, altered and falsified audio/video recordings to do so.

I now know the aphorism regarding the society’s general sentiment, “you can’t beat City Hall,” is true. It is true; for the Police, the District Attorneys, the City Attorneys are allowed to cheat to win by those who should be holding them accountable.

The corruption that exists in the authoritative institutions of our Nation is a direct result of the failure of specific individuals being held accountable. First it is once, then it happens a second and third time to the point that no one is ever held accountable out of fear of retaliation.

Mr. Larkin has violated several State Bar Rules and Laws because he believes that you will not hold him accountable. Mr. Larkin will continue to violate the rules and laws getting away with doing so because the people whom he violates are defenseless against his actions. Mr. Larkin never imagined that I would have been able to get bailed out of jail and then obtain an attorney and an expert. Other City Attorneys and law enforcement agencies will believe that they too can do likewise if Mr. Larkin is not held accountable if you do not hold Mr. Larkin accountable.

Two weeks after Judge Thang Barrett dismissed the criminal charges against me, Palo Alto Police Sgt. Natasha Powers filed a false report with her own agency in an attempt to wrongfully incriminate me once again. Asst City Attorney Don Larkin refused to hold Natasha Powers accountable. Palo Alto Police Office Louis Parham attempted to plant illegal drugs on me. Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns got caught lying on the witness stand presenting a bogus report to cover up the unlawful actions of his subordinate officers, See Exhibit 80. Palo Alto Police and the Palo Alto City Attorney’s office destroy the video of crash caused by one of their officers, See Exhibit 81. Please note that the two tamper proof hard drives are crash proof and that the camera starts recording as soon as the lights are activated which occurred in this instance. The Palo Alto Police give two contradictory stories on how a Palo Alto Police Officer killed a robbery suspect, See Exhibit 82.

TWENTY: VIOLATING GOVERNMENT CODE 6250

On October 25, 2011 Scott Olsen was shot in the head with a CS canister by law enforcement personnel at the “Oakland Occupy” protest, See Exhibit 88. Palo Alto Police were a part of the law enforcement crowd control contingent at the incident in which Scott Olsen was shot. For over a month Palo Alto Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin has refused to provide the names of the Palo Alto Police Officers involved or the equipment and or weapons used by the officers during the incident despite a Public Records Request made by former Public Defender Aram James, (415-370-5056/ abjpd1@gmail.com) and Palo Alto Free Press Editor Mark Peterson-Perez, (650-384-5077/ paloaltofreepress@gmail.com).

Mr. Larkin informed Mr. James that the City of Palo Alto does not have to provide the names of the officers because they were not involved in a critical incident pursuant to Gov. Code 6254(f) and Penal Code 832.7, See Exhibit 89. Mr. Larkin lied to Mr. James for there is no provision within either of those codes that gives Mr. Larkin or the City the right to deny Mr. James or anyone from the public the names of the City employees who participated in Oakland Occupy on October 25, 2011.

By denying Mr. James and Mr. Peterson-Perez the information sought pursuant to California Public Records Act-Government Codes 6250-6270, Mr. Larkin has violated Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(a).

On December 1, 2011 the City of Oakland revealed the names of he Palo Alto Officers to Shankar Ramamoorthy, See Exhibit 85.

What is really revealing about another possible City of Palo Alto cover-up is that the Palo Alto Police initially stated that they “fired” CS gas, See Exhibit 86. Then the Palo Alto Police followed it up by stating that they don’t use the kind of CS gas that is fired, that they only use the kind that is thrown by hand, See Exhibit 87.

Given that Mr. Larkin refuses to identify all of the equipment and weapons used by the Palo Alto Police I find the assertion that they do not have “CS canister launchers” completely lacking any credibility for the Palo Alto Police Department has a fully equipped SWAT team with all of the bells and whistles available including a new $700,000.00 Command Vehicle, See: http://palyvoice.com/node/27385.

It appears that Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin is covering up the unlawful actions of the Palo Alto Police once again.

It should be noted that Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger is one of the officers involved with the Scott Olsen incident, Exhibit 85. Officer Burger shot me in the face without warning while my hands were in the air next to my head while I was not resisting or fleeing, See Exhibits 78 and 300.

Now just imagine if the Officer who shot Scott Olsen is Officer Kelly Burger.

Lt. April Wagner, a known perjurer, was also a part of the Olsen incident, Exhibit 85.

TWENTY-ONE: VIOLATING GOVERNMENT CODE 6250 AND BUS. & PROF. CODE 6068(a)

On November 17, 2011 I requested that Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin provide the names of all Police Officers who participated in the October 25, 2011 “Oakland Occupy” protest crowd control incident. I also requested that Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin provide the names of all Palo Alto Police Officers who are members of the Palo Alto SWAT team. Attorney Don Larkin did not provide me the information and did not inform of his reasons for not providing the information within 10 days pursuant to CPRA 6253(c), See Exhibit 93.

Attorney Don Larkin has violated Business & Professions Code 6068(a) by not adhering to Government Code 6253(c).

IN CONCLUSION:

Santa Clara County Crime Lab Analyst Christopher Corpora confirmed that there should be Audio on Temores’ MAV recording. Additionally, Corpora confirmed that Temores’ Taser video is missing FOUR seconds of video footage. Interestingly, Mr. Corpora consults with Kustom Signals Technician, Tim, (¶2 of Pg. 3 of Corpora’s report), about analyzing the Metadata on the MAV recordings, but does not say anything about analyzing the “WATERMARK.” See Exhibit 84.

Santa Clara County Crime Lab Analyst Mario Soto confirmed that the Hash Values of the Taser videos on the Hard Drive to not match the Hash Values of the Taser videos from the taser cameras verifying that editing has taken place. Then Mr. Soto provides an excuse that the Hash Values could be different just by making a copy. The question is, if the Hash Values could be different from making a copy then analysts would never compare Hash Values in the first place for it would not be a legitimate means to evaluate the integrity and authenticity of Taser videos and or electronic files. See Exhibit 84.

Santa Clara County Supervising Criminalist John Bourke verified that the Video Frames of the Taser Videos were not in chronological order. See Exhibit 84.

Most conspicuous of all in the fraudulent analysis conducted by the Santa Clara County Crime Lab is that out of Three separate Analysts not one of them cited the Taser guns’ activation data in their reports.

See Exhibit 84.

We claim to be a nation of laws, yet if the laws are not enforced consistently and equally, then America is not a nation of laws, but of Nation of dictatorial decrees used to oppress the weak and defenseless.

You are my last hope at some sense of justice. If the police, if city attorneys, if prosecutors can falsify and edit audio/video recordings in order to incriminate citizens of crimes, then no one is safe and we are not a Nation of freedom.

Where appropriate, please apply any of the above violations to

State Bar Intake #10-27213-Attorney Steven Sherman, Bar No. 113621.

The entire above complaint is also directed at former Palo Alto City Attorney Gary Baum. Mr. Baum was the City Attorney during the criminal portion of this complaint and I expect that Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin will try to avoid responsibility by passing the blame onto Attorney Gary Baum State Bar No. 117200.

Additionally, to a lesser extent please include current Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump who is aware of many of the above violations committed by Attorneys Don Larkin and Steven Sherman yet she refuses to take any action. Attorney Molly Stump’s Bar Number is 177165.

I did retain my rights to seek legal action against Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International. I have the evidence which proves my allegations that they submitted falsified analysis to the court in order to deprive me of my Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process. If you know of any attorneys who believe the truth and justice should triumph over falsehood and injustice and would like to hold the lawbreakers of Taser International and Kustom Signals accountable please let them and me know. If you know of any attorneys who believe that the powerless deserve justice, please let them know about my case.

Lastly, I imagine that you will conduct a cursory analysis of the videos in order to validate or refute my allegations of video editing, altering and falsification. Knowing that you will most likely put forth a conclusion in this matter I respectfully request that you provide the three individual, “Still Frames,” scenes from Temores’ MAV video that you believe correspond to the three Taser video “Still Frames,” scenes from the Taser Videos, Exhibit 90 along with your findings regarding the tampering of the video evidence and conclusions regarding Attorney Don Larkin’s violations of the law.

Additionally, I request that explain how two different audio recording devices recording from the same location at the same time can record/capture two completely different statements, See Exhibit 91. And finally, could you also explain how Temores’ MAV recording only captured one Taser gun firing which discharged two probes when Officer Burger himself admitted that four probes were fired from two separate firings See Exhibit 92 and Exhibit 57. Thank you.

December 17, 2011

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake

The State Bar of California

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

This is a Supplement to the complaint filed on December 5, 2011 regarding the violations of the laws and State Bar Rules by Attorney Don Larkin, Bar # 199759.

Attached to this Supplemental Complaint are Exhibits 90 through 95.

More Significant Editing Flaws

Taser Gun Manual

Taser Data Port Manual

Taser Camera Manual

Palo Alto Use of Force Policy

Palo Alto Evidence Policy

Palo Alto MAV Specifications/Policy

Evidence of the Complicity of Attorney Michael Gennaco, Bar # 112969.

As pointed out in my initial complaint, Violation Number Twenty-One: Violating Government Code 6250 and Bus. & Prof. Code 6068, attorney Don Larkin failed to provide a response to my lawful request of public information within ten days pursuant to Gov. Code 6253(c) and thereby violated Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(a) for failing to uphold the law, See Exhibit 93. Since my initial submission, Attorney Don Larkin sent me an email stating that he never received my initial request in an attempt to cover up his violation, See Exhibit 94.

Mr. Larkin has verified that he violated Gov. Code 6253(c) and then tried to cover up his violation. Mr. Larkin cannot claim that he did not receive my email, for we have exchanged well over thirty and maybe as many as fifty emails since August 2011 and this is the first time that Mr. Larkin has claimed that he did not receive one.

Additionally on December 2, 2011 I informed Mr. Larkin that he receive my November 17, 2011 CPRA request and providing it to him once again. Furthermore I re-submitted my request to Mr. Larkin and his immediate supervisor, Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump, Bar # 177165, specifying exactly what I was requesting, See Exhibit 95.

As of the date of this correspondence, Mr. Larkin and Ms. Stump have not responded to my December 2, 2011 CPRA request and therefore violated Government Code 6253(c). In violating Gov. Code 6253(c) Mr. Larkin and Ms. Stump have violated Business and Professions Code 6068(a) a SECOND time/ violation number TWNETY-TWO.

TWENTY-THREE: SUPRESSION OF USE OF FORCE REPORT PREPARED BY SGT. POWERS

The Use of Force Report of the March 15, 2008 incident was prepared by Sgt. Natasha Powers, See Exhibit 96. According to Discovery Requests submitted by my former attorney David Beauvais, Exhibits 2 and 2B Attorney Don Larkin was lawfully required to provide the Use of Force Report pursuant to Penal Code Pen. Code, § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, and State Bar Rule 5-220. This report was never provided to my attorney or me during my criminal case.

It was first provided on September 3, 2009 as a result of a Discovery request in my Civil Case, C09-02655. By not providing this Use of Force Report, Attorney Don Larkin violated California Penal Code , § 1054.5, § 1054.1, Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, and State Bar Rule 5-220.

On October 20, 2010 Attorney Steven Sherman, Bar # 113621, conducted a deposition of me, Joseph Anthony Ciampi. During this deposition Mr. Sherman coerced me to answer questions that I believe I did not have to answer by threatening me that if I did not answer the questions he would go to the court and obtain an order from the court demanding that I answer the questions and force me to pay the additional deposition costs including the court reporter, the videographer and Mr. Sherman’s time as well. I cannot cite all of it because I do not have a copy of the deposition. However I did take notes of he Deposition transcript and here are some of the statements made by Mr. Sherman and myself.

Mr. Sherman asked me about college, how many years did I attend. I responded approximately two years, Pg. 17 of the Deposition Transcript. Mr. Sherman then asked me what college I went to. I did not believe that it was relevant to the case and therefore informed Mr. Sherman as such. Mr. Sherman asked me when I went to college, again I said that it was not relevant to the case, Pg. 18 of the Deposition Transcript.

Mr. Sherman then asserted to me that there was not a judge in the world that is not going to make me answer. Mr. Sherman and I go back and forth over the issue as I keep informing him that my answer to his questions regarding my educational background is not relevant to what occurred on March 15, 2008, Pgs. 19-21 of the Deposition Transcript.

Mr. Sherman stated that the court could order me to pay for the expenses of retaking the deposition and asks me if I understand that which I replied that I did. Mr. Sherman then asked again the name of the college I went to in which I responded that, “it’s not relevant.” Appx. Pg. 23 lines 17-22 of the Deposition Transcript.

Mr. Sherman than stated, “that’s the only answer I going to get of your correct?”

I replied yes.

Mr. Sherman then stated, “Okay. You understand I can still go to the court, file a motion and seek costs and fees?”

I replied yes, See Lines 21-25 of Pg. 23 of the Deposition Transcript.

Mr. Sherman then asked me again what years I went to college in which I replied not relevant, Lines 1-4 of Pg. 24 of the Deposition Transcript.

Ultimately I caved in and answered the questions under the weight of Mr. Sherman’s coercive tactic because he stated that he had been playing lawyer for over 25 years, Line 15 of Pg. 25 of the Deposition Transcript.

Whether or not a court would order me to answer Mr. Sherman’s questions is not for Mr. Sherman to assume nor to use that assumption to coerce me to answer those questions by threatening me with the costs associated with another deposition. In threatening me with sanctions, an administrative charge to gain an advantage in the civil case, Mr. Sherman violated State Bar Rule 5-100.

Additionally, Mr. Sherman stated the following during the deposition taken from Pgs. 17 through 20 of Court Document 160:

BELOW FROM THE OCTOBER 20, 2010 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT, (Pages Approximate):

From Page 200

Sherman: “I’m going to really make it obnoxious for you. “Assuming God came down, and God said, “These videos have not been altered,” okay, the MAV video. Would then it seem reasonable to you that the taser videos have not been altered.?

Ciampi: That’s –it’s still speculative. I can’t – you know, it’s a hypothetical question, you know.

Sherman: “It is.”

Ciampi: Yea.

Sherman: But assuming those facts.

Ciampi: I can’t answer that question, because it’s not what happened.

Sherman: And I appreciate that, and I understand that. I guess my question is better asked, since everything seems to flow –

Ciampi: Unbelievably so yes.

Sherman: Unbelievably so from your perspective. But from my perspective, since everything seems to flow, if – and I’m not saying it is, I’m – hypothetically, if the MAV videos have not been altered, and God comes down himself and says, “These videos have not been altered,” would it stand to reason that the MAV videos – that the taser videos also have not been altered.”

From Page 201

Ciampi: God saw everything, and – he’s not going to say that.

Sherman: But if he did, would that make sense?

Ciampi: He wouldn’t. He wouldn’t if.

Sherman: But hypothetically if he did.

Ciampi: He wouldn’t hypothetically.

Sherman: All I’m trying to – let me – let me try it this way. Will you –

Ciampi: I’m not going to go there. I mean, because it is what it is, and –

Sherman: I agree with that statement.

From Page 202

Ciampi: So reasoning would deduce that to that they would also remove the same footage from the MAV that they removed from the taser video.

Sherman: Okay. Let me ask it your way. If God came down and said, “oh, these taser videos have not been altered” –

Ciampi: He wouldn’t do that.

Sherman: I know. Hypothetically speaking. Hypothetically speaking, not facts, not your beliefs, not your –

Ciampi: But this is supposed to be about facts.

Sherman: Well, but I’m also entitled to ask you hypothetical questions without – and if you can’t answer them, then please, then you can’t answer them, and you, you know –

Ciampi: Okay.

From Page 203

Sherman: I don’t want you. But assuming – it’s sort of like when I made the representation to you about, you know, a judge most likely ordering you to answer the question about school and basic stuff, that is just – you know, it’s me saying trust me on this one. But that was reality.

Sherman: What I’m now asking you about is not what you believe to be reality, so it’s a made-up question. It’s a – it’s a what if, what if, what if type question. That’s why it starts off with “hypothetically speaking.” It’s not reality as far as you’re concerned, but hypothetically speaking, made-up question. If the MAV – I’m sorry. I want to do it your way.

Sherman: If the taser videos have not been altered, would it also not seem unreasonable that the MAV videos have not been altered, because they all have to be altered, right?

Ciampi: Well, they all are. Excuse me. They all are altered, yes.

Sherman: According to you they have to be, otherwise one – they would not match, correct? They would not flow.

Ciampi: Correct.

Sherman: Okay. I’ll be happy with that answer, beause I think that’s all we’re going to be able to get,

From Page 204

Sherman: Because you – God is not going to come down, and you’re not going to believe God even if he did.

Ciampi: Oh, I believe God, yeah. He saw everything.

Sherman: Okay. Good.

Ciampi: One day we will all see that recording.

Sherman: Probably.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

Commissioner James Madden Caught Spewing More Then Judicial Smoke

And the Sign Said, “Long-Haired Freaky People Need Not Apply”.  So I took out a pack and I said imagine that these rules don’t apply.

Now, look again.  “No Smoking within 30 feet of the Entrance, Exits and Operable Window By order of the Presiding Judge Superior Court of California – County of Santa Clara”.

This commissioner was caught smoking earlier right outside of the exit doors of Palo Alto Superior Court located on 270 Grant Ave and when he noticed me photographing him he crept away from being near the front entrance and ended up right here in the photo below.

Now the laws must have changed recently only because when I Googled, smoking in public places, I found that the distance from any door entrance must be 20 feet.

Now here’s what the law say’s;

“2010 California Code Government Code Chapter 32. Smoking In Public Buildings7597. (a) No public employee or member of the public shall smoke any tobacco product inside a public building, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of a public building, or in a passenger vehicle, as defined by Section 465 of the Vehicle Code, owned by the state.”

Commissioner Madden’s Secondhand Smoke Is Toxic

 

Mind if I Smoke?

“The research is overwhelming – with over 7,000 chemicals, at least 70 of which are cancer-causing, even brief exposure to secondhand smoke is dangerous. 1

Secondhand smoke is both the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke that is exhaled by smokers. It can stay in the air long after a cigarette has been put out and can be involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers.

Secondhand smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans every year and causes serious life-threatening illnesses to thousands more. In 2006, the California Air Resources Board classified secondhand smoke as a “Toxic Air Contaminant” in the same category as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic2 – all of which can lead to serious illness and death.

The U.S. Surgeon General says there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Children, pregnant women, the elderly and those with chronic illnesses are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. In fact, secondhand smoke exposure can cause asthma in children who have previously not had any symptoms.2 Other health effects on children from secondhand smoke exposure3 include:

  • Low birth weight and lung problems in infants
  • Acute lower respiratory tract infections (bronchitis and pneumonia)
  • Middle-ear infections
  • Chronic respiratory symptoms or problems

Secondhand smoke is also a serious health threat for nonsmoking adults. It causes lung cancer in those who haven’t previously smoked and increases the risk for heart disease, stroke and chronic lung problems.

What prompted this story, I was once ticketed for throwing a burning cigarette butt out the window of my truck.  Now that’s a big NO, NO and I should have rightfully received the ticket for the infraction cited.  But that was not the case.

The truth is, I was flipping off (Giving the three fingered salute) to a Palo Alto police officer stopped at the light next to me while having a lite cigarette in my hand out the window.

I recognized this PAPD officer as one of the officers who purchased and installed a phone in my apartment in violation of my 4th amendment rights. That’s right. Without a warrant!

When I complained to the PAPD, that I had just received a phone bill in excess of $300 and later ballooned to $2000.00 I spoke to then PAPD Captain Brad Zook aka Crook about being reimbursed and if they were not going to pay, I’d take then to small claims court!

He said, “Go ahead make my day”.

Well guess who the Judge was?  That’s right Commissioner James Madman Madden. He ruled in favor of the cops claiming it was exigent circumstances.  For years this unpaid bill was on my credit report as a negative entry.

I argued throwing my cigarette butt out the window case in traffic court before Commissioner James Madman Madden he would have nothing to do my three fingered salute defense.   He did dismiss my not having a California plate or drivers license but let stand throwing the lite cigarette butt out the window when in fact it was only cigarette ash.  Again in favor of the PAPD in my earlier dispute.

So when I caught Commissioner James Madman Madden smoking right outside the exit doors creating a toxic plume of smoke he rushed down the court house steps to a safer or legal location where this photo was taken. “Revenge is a dish best served cold.” -Klingon Proverb-

What I also found was that the ashtray receptacle measured only 22 feet from the door and therefore in non-compliance.  This commissioner not only blew unconstitutional judicial toxic smoke in his rulings against me, but perhaps against others all in favor of the police.

Commissioner James Madman Madden just may in fact be endangering the lives and health of citizens who encounter his toxic plum of cigarette smoke on a daily basis while entering and exiting the building.

Without question the data on secondhand cigarette smoke KILLS.  And this commissioner just might be passing on the unwanted judgement of death upon us all, knowingly.

References:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease, A Report of the Surgeon General. 2010.

2. State of California Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary, 2005.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet: “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking,” 1993.

You Tube on Commissioner James Madden