Santa Clara County Judicial Candidates Need to Answer our Relevant Questions

imageHere come’s the judge…….The Weekly pulls the endorsement plug on Steven Pogue…………..Who’s next??image



(1) What is Sevely’s view on [any] …. issue? I bet she will be non-responsive!!  HAS THE WEEKLY CALLED HER RE HER VIEW or are they –the Weekly not endorsing anyone for this judicial position?

*** I am copying Sevely in on this e-mail. Cindy what is your view on Prop 8? Do you support or oppose gay marriage? Watch her dodge the issue or be non-responsive.

(2) The Weekly’s piece says something to the effect that they were not impressed with Sevely’s judicial temperament –but gave no details re what they meant in this regard.

3) I have always gotten along with Cindy Sevely and have nothing bad to say about her as a public servant and as a DA–unlike many in the criminal justice system–Cindy has always treated me with the utmost respect despite my reputation as being a true believer kind of a public defender.

(4) I bet she would now refuse to answer what her position was on Prop 8–she sure would have at Thursday’s debate–she would –like the rest of the candidates- disingenuously hide behind judicial Canon 5 claiming the Cannon forbids them from answering a question re their personal opinions on the hot button political, legal and social issues of the day….All not true— the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in Republican Party v White

ruled just the opposite– the candidates have an absolute right under the first amendment the court ruled— to express their views on the issues–the death penalty–gay marriage–Zionism–IPA’s ( Independent Police Auditors) a police crimes unit to prosecute cops in the DA’s office–the war on drugs–the war on African-American men–etc, etc…and equally important we the public have a right to know their views before we enter the voter booth.

But these candidates–play fast and loose with the truth and claim that they can’t not they won’t answer the hard ball questions. Then they all go on to answer–cherry pick –the soft ball questions.

Bottom line: They don’t want to be pinned down on an issues they think they might lose votes on. It is a farce: See my earlier attempt to get judicial candidates to answer relevant questions in the past:

I think the Weekly pulling the endorsement is a weak move–I am hugely opposed to Prop 8–big time gay marriage supporter-but strongly believe Mr. Pogue is entitled to his opinion–and good for him having one he is willing to share–at least the voters know and consider this as one factor in deciding if he would be a good or bad choice for judge. But simply not agreeing with me on that issue doesn’t mean he won’t make a good or great judge.

The operative question is –Mr. Pogue–in light of your personal views on gay marriage will you automatically apply your personal views to a gay rights issue that comes before you as a judge? Or will you recuse yourself–from hearing such matters because of the strong nature of your  personal views?

The Weekly–by pulling their endorsement because of Mr. Pogue’s personal views on one issue –may have the effect of making future candidates even less willing to be forthcoming on the issues–all to the determent of the voters who should be entitled to hear what the judicial candidates have to say–and how they think on these issues.

That’s what I need to know before I vote–not how big your endorsement list is–tells me nothing about how you think on the issues!!!!!

Otherwise these campaigns come down to which candidate can accumulate the longest list of meaningless cop and judge endorsements—essentially an insiders popularity contest–without a real effort to outreach to the public in any meaningful manner. The who has the biggest cop judge endorsement game— truly makes me sick–can’t we have a little more integrity and intellectual honesty than this?

We have a criminal justice system crashing and burning around us–racial genocide in our prison system–wholesale disenfranchisement of a a large percentage of black and brown males ( see: Michelle Alexander’s the New Jim Crow) and you folks running for judge insult all of us by your run for the meaningless endorsements game.

And how dare you–which every candidate suggested this–claims race isn’t an issue in this judicial campaign (SF Daily Journal Friday May 25, 2012 article: Santa Clara judge hopefuls, say race isn’t factor in election)..

They all violated the the voters’ right to know ( first amend right)–at the judicial debates on Thursday –as far as I am concerned–and I let them know–so far not one of them has stepped to the plate and admitted they misrepresented their ability to respond to direct questions.

If you want to see the blatant misrepresentation–the debate/forum was taped for future showing.

They hide behind a  judicial Canon 5–that they all falsely claimed wouldn’t allow then to answer questions like— do you support or oppose Gay Marriage-?

In any event, enough for now–I invite questions–comments from all concerned –re these so critical issues–that deserve better development than this campaign has thus far provided. So far all  5 candidates get a big D -.

” Read Republican Party v White and then tell me where you stand on answering questions”

Employees Double-Dipping in Palo Alto

Forty-Five, 45, Palo Alto Employees Receive Retirement Benefits In Addition To Their Pay.

In response to a public records request for the current pay to retired Palo Alto Employees above and beyond their retirement benefits this news site was provided an email response from city staff which contained two spread sheets detailing most but not all of the information sought.

Over the last year and a half sixty-four, (64), city employees who had retired were subsequently rehired to perform work for the City. Currently forty-five, (45), retired employees are working for the City of Palo Alto. According to the City’s response to this public records request the City of Palo Alto does not have access to any information which would indicate what many of the retired employees are currently doing for the City in exchange for compensation in addition to their retirement benefits.

“This information is not in a report or electronic data format, therefore the City is not able to respond to this question at this time.” Sandra Blanch

According to the Excel spread sheet on salaries CalPERS requires that retired employees who are rehired to be identified as a “Management Spec.,” thus the deliberate concealment of what public servants are doing on behalf of the public while being paid by the public.

Some Examples:

Scott Wong retired as a Police Lieutenant Advanced and received $297,110.99 in compensation for 2011. Scott Wong retired on September 16, 2011 and was rehired by the City on September 24, 2011 as a Management Spec. at a pay rate of $77.30 per hour.

The total compensation of what Scott Wong has received which could be provided by supplying the number of hours he has worked for the City from on September 24, 2011 to the present was not provided.

Douglas Keith retired as a Police Lieutenant Advanced and received $311,060.20 in compensation for 2011.
Douglas Keith retired on September 13, 2011 and was rehired by the City on October 17, 2011 as a Management Spec. at a pay rate of $77.30 per hour.

The total compensation of what Doug Keith has received by providing the number of hours he has worked for the City from October 17, 2011 to the present was not provided.

Rebecca Phillips retired as a Police Sergeant Advanced on July 2, 2011 and was rehired as a Police Reserve ǀ on April 17, 2012. Why her job description is supplied and not the others conveys a contradiction in the policy of not identifying everyone’s job’s description.

The lowest and highest hourly rates paid to retired employees are $14.26 to a former library assistant and $83.00 to a former Deputy Fire Chief. The average paid to all retired employees is appx. $45.00 per hour.

At a time of budget deficits, waning tax revenue and mass unemployment it makes one scratch his/her head as who is serving who. Is the public employee serving the interests of the public in an ethical and efficient manner, or is the public serving the interests of the public employee to the detriment of the public’s interests?

California Public Records Request Act data links below:

Re-Hire Retiree from 01/01/2011 – 05/23/2012

Copy of Copy of CY 2011 press release



President Obama’s Motorcade Route Changes to San Jose

As reported in the Palo Alto Daily Post today “a $35,000-a-person fundraiser this morning at the Garden Court Hotel in Palo Alto scheduled for 8:30 this morning was moved without explanation to San Jose.”

Dispatch? Yea...Did you get the plate number....Over...

We believe the Secret Service concluded that based on the Palo Alto Police Department’s disproportional history of vehicle stops of African Americans and Latinos for non-functioning taillights and license plate lights, was in fact, the real reasons for the move.

Palo Alto Police Department’s Response to Concerns Regarding Bias Based Policing

Is the Palo Alto Police Department training its officers to violate the Constitution?

At approximately 4:20pm on Saturday May 19, 2012, on Palo Alto Ave, a Palo Alto Police Officer pulled over a citizen for allegedly driving while talking on his cell phone.

Upon witnessing the incident it became apparent that the officer who pulled the citizen over appeared to be a trainee for there was another person, a female, riding along in the passenger seat of his patrol car who seemed much more seasoned than the officer issuing the citation.

I interviewed the driver of the tan van and asked what he had been pulled over for, and he informed me that he had been pulled over for using his cell phone while driving. He stated that he was not using his cell phone and that his cell phone verified that he made his last call three hours prior to being pulled over.

I cannot say for certain that this is the case, however if it is true that the officer pulled him over for using a cell phone and giving him a ticket for doing so when the citizen was not using as cell phone then the officer unlawfully detained the citizen.

The citizen informed me that he was going to refuse to sign the ticket and requested that a supervisor come to the seen, to which one did. The citizen stated that the officers were going to arrest him if he did not sign the ticket which prompted the citizen to sign the ticket.

I informed the citizen to document that he was not on his cell phone in order to get his ticket dismissed and then to file a complaint and a claim with the City of Palo Alto for violating his Constitutional rights. He indicated to me that he would.

Now the dilemma for the City of Palo Alto and IPA Michael Gennaco.

This communication has informed you, the City of Palo Alto, of the possible offense committed by one of your employees. The question is, will the internal affairs and the City Attorney and IPA Gennaco initiate an investigation to determine whether or not the Palo Alto Police Officer issued a fraudulent ticket and committed an unlawful detention prior to the citizen getting his ticket dismissed and submitting a complaint and claim?

If the City of Palo Alto, the PAPD and Michael Gennaco does nothing to reveal the truth prior to this person having to go through the trouble of proving his innocence in court, then it will be 100% proof that the City of Palo Alto, the PAPD and Michael Gennaco support their police officers using lies to incriminate citizens should it be proven that the citizen was not on his cell phone while driving and that it was an unlawful detention and citation.

Will City Attorney Molly Stump, City Manager James Keene and IPA Michael Gennaco wait forcing the citizen to defend himself against a potentially false charge or will they be proactive and seek the truth before hand in order to uphold and protect the Constitution?

Currently the evidence suggests that the citizen was unlawfully detained and cited and threatened with arrest, the truth should be on the MAV videos.

Why I am Running for Congress this Year…

Twenty years ago, after watching the Oliver Stone film JFK, I was inspired to begin doing some research at the local library and became deeply disturbed by what I found out about the government’s covert operations. I felt a deep sense of responsibility to share what I had learned, first as a citizen, but also because I considered myself to be a writer and had worked in public relations.

I knew the power of the written word, that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword in the modern wars of propaganda. I felt that if people knew the facts, the truth, that we would be able to radically change our policies. Having begun that journey two decades ago, I have persevered in my efforts to inform the American people about issues that are ignored by mainstream media, all the while trying to balance my political work with the needs of my family and raising children.

Last year I worked on numerous issues, such as challenging the oil industry, challenging the nuclear industry, challenging corporate power in general, and advocating for significant monetary reform. I hosted a weekly radio show, interviewing activists involved in such disparate issues as the Gulf oil disaster, Fukushima, fracking, the politics of water, labeling GMOs, the Afghan war and American empire, shutting down Guantanamo, exploding the 9/11 myth, and Occupy Wall Street.

I helped to organize rallies, marches, and events that challenged multinational corporations, exploitative industries,the endless pre-emptive wars, the government’s assault on human rights, and the unpunished crimes of major financial institutions.

I am running for Congress to champion people power over corporate power, to redirect our vast resources away from imperial wars towards meeting human needs, to redesign our monetary system so that it is fair, honest, democratic, and accountable and serves rather than enslaves people. I am running for Congress to stand up to the oil, nuclear, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries that threaten us more than they serve us and need to be reined in.

I am running for Congress because I love life, my family, my children, and I care deeply about the future. I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything I can to rectify the problems that I am aware of and to help move our culture in a positive direction.

Perhaps the biggest difference between most incumbents and an insurgent candidate like me is that I do believe that people, given all the facts, can collectively make wise decisions. The revolutions that are occurring in almost every technological field, especially in communications, are making a human renaissance possible.

We can trump the corporate forces that are based on greed and the narrow pursuit of profit regardless of human and environmental costs. We can expose the lies and propaganda that shroud the dominant institutions under a disintegrating veil of legitimacy.

We can change the rules of the monetary game; we can reclaim the power to create money from the private banks that have abused that privilege to concentrate wealth and power, buy our government and dictate policy. We can turn money into a public utility to serve the common good, fund education, healthcare, create good jobs, and repair infrastructure.

We can dismantle empire, recognize and respect human rights, and begin to restore a legitimate government that will serve the people, protect the biosphere upon which all life depends, and stop catering to corporate demands.

The corporate structure was invented to serve the needs of expanding empire. Initially the American Revolution curbed the tyrannical corporate structure, but over time laws were subverted and rewritten to allow corporations to trump every aspect of our lives. We must rein in corporate power.

If elected, I pledge to introduce an amendment to the Constitution which would abolish corporate personhood, declare that money is not free speech, and explicitly ban special interest money in elections. As long as murder, war, and theft by corrupt legislators is legalized, we do not have a democracy. We must demand accountability and transparency in all aspects of government.

We must respect and protect all peoples’ human rights. We must match process with purpose, and walk our talk. We can activate, empower, and open the eyes of our friends, our neighbors, our families. If we replicate this process on the scale of a Congressional district or the entire state, we can take our government back. I invite everyone to walk the precincts with me, and vote for me. Together, we can occupy Congress!

May 2012 Report–Constitutional Enforcement Agency of Palo Alto


Pursuant to Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor’s 2011 Final Report:

lll. Cases Pending from Prior Report

1. Complaint of Biased Enforcement and Improper Search #C2011-001

IPAs Michael Gennaco and Robert Miller inform the community that PAPD policy restricts officers from making vehicle stops based upon race or ethnicity and that the stop must point to objective facts of a violation of law.

Gennaco and Miller reviewed all of the reports and the MAV recording of the incident.

Gennaco and Miller determined that the complainant was driving a 1976 Chevrolet Nova and that the vehicle was being driven by an African American, the complainant.

Gennaco and Miller verify that the police officer turned off the headlights to his vehicle to determine whether or not the complainant was in violation of a California Vehicle Code.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the stop was neither racially nor economically motivated.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the stop was lawful for the claimant was in violation of V.C 24601.–“Either the taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear license plate during darkness and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear.”

As a result of the detainment, the officers engaged in a search of the complainant and the car due to the complainant’s probation status.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the officer turned his headlights off in order to determine whether or not there were objective facts that the complainant was in violation of V.C 24601,


Answer, there were no objective facts prior to the officer turning his headlights off for logic dictates that if there were then it would have been unnecessary for the officer to turn his headlights off.


Does this particular officer turn his headlights off on a regular basis to see if citizens are in violation of V.C 24601? How many times over the last six months has this officer turned his headlights off to obtain objective evidence that a license plate light is out? Does this officer turn his headlights off when following late model BMWs and Mercedes driven by White Middle Aged Women?

Prior to determining whether or not there were objective facts that conveyed a violation of V.C 24601 the officer was forced to turn off his headlights which is a violation of Calif. V.C. 24400.(b) and or Calif. V.C 24409.

The officer violated a vehicle in order to determine whether or not there were objective facts to detain a citizen for not having an illuminated license plate jeopardizing the safety of the community in the process.

Gennaco and Miller concluded that the officer verified that the search of complainant and his vehicle was lawful due to the complainant’s probation status. However, the initial search of the complainant would not been performed if not stopped for the vehicle violation and therefore the complainant’s probation status would not have been discovered.

Since the initial stop was initiated by a prejudicially motivated and unlawful act of turning off the headlights which resulted in discovering the probation status it is concluded that the search was unlawful and in violation of PAPD policy.

Additionally, the officer knowingly and intentionally violated a vehicle code for which he has not been cited or disciplined for.

The act of giving a citation to a citizen for violating a vehicle code while knowingly refusing to give a citation to a PAPD police officer for violating a vehicle code which occurred during the same incident is empirical, beyond reasonable doubt, evidence that the PAPD has acted prejudicially against the complainant and that Gennaco and Miller support this prejudiced act.

The CEA has concluded that Palo Alto IPAs Michael Gennaco’s and Robert Miller’s findings in this case in error.

Due to the lack of thoroughness performed by IPAs Michael Gennaco and Robert Miller it is found that their report is prejudicially motivated in order to shield the PAPD and City of Palo Alto from financial and legal liability while protecting the reputation of PAPD and City.

CA V.C. 24400.
“(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).”

CA V.C 24409. “Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated during darkness, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam,directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to
the following requirements and limitations:”

Constitutional Enforcement Agency of Palo Alto
May 2012 Report Prepared
Tony Ciampi

The Three Stooges Movie Review:

What’s wrong and what’s good about the Stooges?

Anyone who remembers the Stooges will be happy that Moe hasn’t lost a step, kick or poke and the other Stooges can still take a punch or hammer bash with a blink and a ‘boink.’   You will laugh and need a stenographer to catch all the puns, quips and jokes.   The movie blends perfectly with the Stooge ‘oeuvre.’  So what’s wrong?

Well, it’s subtle but the movie goes ‘Clinton / Edwards’ on us in the last act.  You might sense yourself squirm just for a second with a plot twist we’d only expect from a President or Senator.   I  won’t spoil it for you but inquiring minds will get their faces rubbed in the lechery and betrayal of what Hollywood sees as ‘family life.’   Yeah strange things do happen in families but geez, this is supposed to be a Stooge movie not a depravity contest.

Anyway, Hollywood and Politics have become a fashionable blend.  You can’t seem to get one without a smear of the other.  So the writers felt obligated to get a cultural (political) cheap shot in at the the Church and Family.  These are easy targets for brave writers who never seem to write anything funny about Islam.

At some parts you may catch yourself laughing a little too hard.  Are we trying to elevate ourselves in a perverse way, by trashing under foot the honorable notions of culture, family and faith?

The Christian faith, like the Stooges, can take a good punch and still turn the other cheek.  And for all its missteps the Christian faith still encourages family, tolerance, charity, generosity, honesty, goodness, community  and peace.  So if  knocking ‘family and faith’ isn’t courageous, clever or profound, what is it?  It’s perverse.  And it’s also politically correct and all too common.  Why?

Lots of reasons but here’s two big ones.

1.   We want everyone to feel good, which is nice and Utopian but Utopian is not realistic.

2.   Politicians want every  group and vote counted, no matter how bizarre, weird or destructive, because politicians  just want to win.

Alexis deTocqueville called this situation a ‘tyranny of minorities.’

In the Stooge’s case, knocking ‘family and faith’ is just another celebration of the ‘weird view,’  disguised as comedy.   According to Joseph Campbell, mythologist and scholar, a solid culture celebrates the eternal  truths with stories that support the culture and truth.

Judging by the Stooge story, ‘family and faith’ are not a respectable part of our culture.  People will say I’m too conservative.   But where’s their tolerance, where’s their love?  We used to make funny movies without trashing and shaming ourselves.  Now we’re essentially beating ourselves up all the time in the Simpsons, Family Guy, glorified soap operas like Desparate Housewives, and all the TV comedies with buffoon fathers.

Today we mistake self destruction for humility and tolerance.  And that’s so bad,  it’s funny.

Check out the Stooges.  You’ll laugh.

Grand Jury Determines Not to Bring Charges Against White Plains Officers Who Killed Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.

On November 19, 2011 White Plains, NY police officer kill retired Marine Kenneth Chamberlain for defending his freedom guaranteed by the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Westchester District Attorney Janet Difiore stated to the media and public that the Grand Jury Heard All of the Evidence, but is that true?

After reviewing the taser video it became apparent to this reporter that two seconds are missing from the taser video. The video jumps from 11:41:48 to 11:41:51 without recording the 49th and 50th seconds. Additionally there is no logical reason why the taser video would not have recorded the one to two minutes of the altercation between the tasering and the firing of a gun which killed Mr. Chamberlain for there is no reason why the taser camera should have been turned off during that time period. Did the White Plains Police remove taser video footage that captured them shooting Mr. Chamberlain to death and then edit it out of the video provided to the District Attorney?

Kenneth Chamberlain explicitly stated to the police that he was okay several times before they broke down his door and killed him in his own home.

Mr. Chamberlain also informs the LIFEAID operator that he is fine to which the LIFEAID operator attempts to cancel the call for service. However the White Plains Police refuse to leave. Why?

The White Plains Dispatcher states that he is not going to withdraw the officers when he states, “Right, yea they’re going to make entry anyway.”

An Officer on scene states, “We can’t leave without checking you out.”


Mr. Chamberlain is engaging you; the WPP officer, in conversation through the door, obviously afraid of being contacted by you directly and therefore armed himself for self-defense protection should you attack him after unlawfully entering his house.

Why does Mr. Chamberlain fear the White Plains police to begin with?

Why does the Dispatcher lie to the LIFEAID operator by stating that the officers at the scene have a key to Mr. Chamberlain’s door and are not going to break the door down?

Mr. Chamberlain asks the officers why are they at his residence. One of the officers responds by stating that LIFEALERT called them.

The officers go to a scene to conduct a welfare check because LIFEALERT called them there and then LIFEALERT informs the officers that it was a false alarm and do not need to make contact with Mr. Chamberlain. The question is, why did the officers follow the directions of LIFEALERT when called to the residence and then refuse to follow directions of LIFEALERT when LIFEALERT directed them to leave?

At one point during the incident with the police, Mr. Chamberlain’s sister and the LIFEAID operator request that they be allowed to contact Mr. Chamberlain in an attempt to calm him down and reassure Mr. Chamberlain that the police were not going to harm him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the situation the White Plain’s Police Dispatcher responds by stating, “were not going to play mediator or anything between the two of them. Okay. We can’t play those games right now. We got a serious situation going on, we’re trying to figure it out, were trying to get a resolution going….. we’re trying to resolve the situation the best we can.”

The situation is the police are breaking down a United States Citizens’ door to determine whether or not he is having a medical emergency. The citizen has repeatedly informed the police and the LIFEAID service that no emergency has occurred.

What is the “serious situation” that the White Plain’s Police Dispatcher is referring to?

The only serious situation is the one his fellow officers are creating by unlawfully breaking down a United States Citizens’ door.

Is breaking down a Marine’s door who has not committed any crime, who was not threatening any officers and then tasering him and shooting him to death the best you can do White Plains Police?

What would have been the result had Officer Carrelli and the other officers been directed by their superiors, the police dispatcher, to leave Mr. Chamberlain’s residence after he informed them that he was okay?

“Oh, Mr. Chamberlain could have died from a heart attach if we did not check him out,” you say and would be liable if you did not conduct physical exam of him.

Really, then if you are taking responsibility for Mr. Chamberlain’s life after he told you to leave him alone, then surely you should want to take responsibility for Mr. Chamberlain’s life as result of your actions to make contact with him that resulted in his death.

Why was it necessary for the police to enter Mr. Chamberlain’s home and without the aid of Mr. Chamberlain’s sister who was there to assist them?

What was the justification for entering Mr. Chamberlain’s home after he had demonstrated to both LIFEALERT and the police that he was physically okay?

White Plains Police Officer Anthony Carelli why did you need to enter Mr. Chamberlain’s home by breaking down his door after being informed that no emergency had occurred and that Mr. Chamberlain had informed you and the medical aid service, LIFEALERT, that he was okay?

Was Mr. Chamberlain a threat to you Officer Carelli when you were locked out of his apartment?

No he wasn’t was he. You were the threat Officer Carelli from beginning to end.

Why were you in such a hurry to get inside of Mr. Chamberlain’s home where you shot him dead?

If the agents of the government can force their way onto a citizens’ private property with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed then the 4th Amendment does not exist and we are not free.

If we are not allowed to defend ourselves against physical harm committed upon us by others, then we are not free.

Every Marine in America should be on the door step of Westchester District Attorney
Janet Difiore’s door step demanding justice for every one of you Marines defended the freedom to live in one’s home without being accosted by the government which Janet Difiore and Officer Carelli have just eviscerated.

Out from behind the Palo Alto Police cloak of deception

PAPD April Wagner hiding from the facts

“If we say a police officer takes an oath of office to uphold the law, if we require that they must be of good moral character and integrity…then someone who is found to have lied or falsified their notes, can they be said to be upholding their oath? Can they be said to have demonstrated integrity?”…… “My simple, non-legal mind says:  That’s misconduct.”

The chair of the civilian oversight Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukherjee

During a follow-up meeting held on April 10th 2012 concerning the newly planned city of Palo Alto Massage Ordinance.   PAPD Lead Detective Lt. April Wagner was previously asked to provide and furnish a full analysis of sex crime trends and complaints having an effect on Palo Alto and its citizens with respect to the massage profession and why the need for greater state mandated restrictions and policing.

Prior to this meeting Ms. Wagner had in fact provided the Policy and Services Committee Staff with a *report which outlined 10 complaints of a sexual nature going back ten years.

However, when questioned by the committee in regards to the individual specifics of each complaint, Ms. Wagner stated in part, that do to the restrictive and confidential nature of the crimes committed those records cannot be disclosed.

In other words Ms. Wagner was unable to substantiate the existence of any crimes or complaints having occurred as to time place or manner in Palo Alto.  Palo Alto criminal defense attorney Tom Nolan in an email response had this to say:

“I was very surprised by what I observed at the city council’s committee meeting. I was pleased to see a thoughtful council asking important and clear questions to members of the Palo Alto police department.

I was very concerned that the answers given, were not only non-responsive, but, in more than one example, not true. This was insulting to me, was insulting to the community and I believe insulting to the council members. We are a far more intelligent, educated and thoughtful community than the Lt. [Wagner] seems to understand.”

We believe Ms. Wagner as the Chief Detective in charge in all investigative aspects including state compliance of this newly city wide planned massage ordinance certainly had within her capacity access to all criminal justice systems and information available to reveal any and all current and past criminal activity records and chose not to do so.

For this reason we further believe Ms. Wagner set out to use her color of law and authority to deceive and distort the facts presented to the committee as to any and all alleged existence of any crimes having occurred by implying that any information available was deemed confidential and subject to non-public disclosure. Ms. Wagner has a long history of misleading the general public having ‘lied or falsified [her]… notes.’

As one community member put it concerning her apparent lack of presenting qualified past criminal information framed her deception in the following context. She, Wagner presented “thoughtful solutions” to a problem(s) that didn’t exist’…

Exposing Wagner’s deception and her awareness of the law

In the face of the Palo Alto police department’s inability to present any facts of sexual criminal activity or misconduct having occurred in Palo Alto during the past ten years and her apparent deliberate attempts to mislead the policy and services committee members, the general public including the Massage Therapy Profession, Palo Alto Free Press has set out to uncover, present and disclose the true facts of any sexual criminal activities having occurred through a California Public Records Request Act.

The scope of our request was presented on April 13th, 2012 to Palo Alto city attorney Molly Stump in accordance with California Government Code & 6254 (f) (1) as follows:

“(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.”

We intend to publish the results of our request as soon as they become available and force the Palo Alto police – “Out from behind the Palo Alto Police cloak of deception”.

Editor’s notes: Emails to city attorney Molly Stump and phone calls as to the status of our request have gone unanswered. City attorney Molly Stump is currently in violation of California Government Code & 6254 having failed to respond to the 10 day mandated requirement.

See related links below for more information:

Who should regulate the Massage Therapy Profession – The Health Department or Police?

*April 10th 2012 Policy and Services Committee Staff Report- Massage Ordinance Follow-up

New Palo Alto city attorney pledges ‘transparency’

Up-date July 23, 2012

The notorious PAPD Lt. April Wagner aka Chan/Wagner was forced to divulge sex crime data/complaints alleged to have involved Palo Alto massage therapist going back 10 years.  Ms. Wagner previously claimed such data was unavailable due to among other things issues of confidentiality.

However, the law dictates otherwise and from our stand point view Ms. Wagner’s’ previous actions should be held in contempt.

It was only under the threat of a California Public Records Request Act- Writ of mandate that forced the Palo Alto PD to release the data.

From: Scheff, Lisa <>
Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM
Subject: PRA Request
To: “” <>
Cc: “Larkin, Donald” <>

Mr. Peterson-Perez,

Hello, I was asked to [city attorney Donald Larkin] send this list to you regarding your PRA request for Case Numbers.  Please click on the attached.

Thank you,

Lisa Scheff
Records Manager
Palo Alto Police Department

PAPD Sexual Investigation Massage Data

Keeping in mind and based only on the information provided, there were no formal charges filed by the District Attorneys Office on any of the alleged sexual complaints or assaults.

Our conclusion was solely determined by city attorney Donald Larkin’s non-response to this question.  The Palo Alto city attorney’s office is well known for its lack of Open Government and Transparency short of ligation.