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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joseph (Tony) Ciampi
P.O. Box 1681
Palo Alto, CA 94302
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);
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.
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, email@example.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.
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/ firstname.lastname@example.org) and Palo Alto Free Press Editor Mark Peterson-Perez, (650-384-5077/ email@example.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).
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.”
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 –
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.
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.
END OF TRANSCRIPT