“I don’t vote – Two reasons”

“I don’t vote. Two reasons. First of all it’s meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn’t mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain.

People like to twist that around – they say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain’, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”

George Carlin

Global Positioning Systems Used in Tracking Habitation Vehicle’s by the PAPD?

We really don’t know whats up the sleeve of the Palo Alto Police Department but this much we already know they have spent what appears to be a considerable amount of time tracking and placing the whereabouts of all Palo Alto Vehicle inhabitants in and out of the city in their efforts to move forward with a purposed city wide ban.

A closer look at the details of this map prepared by the PAPD [Doug Keith] suggests the surveillance of each vehicle acquired a considerable amount of time and attention in capturing and detailing data.

Palo Alto Police Dept. Subjects living in/out of vehicles

The map was requested through a government request vehicle available to all citizens and not publicized by the city of Palo Alto called, The California Public Records Request Act mandated and enacted by law which allows you and me, the ordinary citizen to find out exactly what our government is up to.

Information, which would normally not be disclosed. Principally by the secretive Palo Alto Police Department, headed up by Chief Dennis Burns and it’s legal Department, Molly Stump charged with keeping it that way and all it’s TOP management leadership including it’s elected council members.

Based upon on the amount of detail provided within this map and the data collected highly suggests the use of Global Positioning Systems or [GPS] tracking devices and the potential use of Drones. Drones are currently in use by Homeland Security.

As originally reported phone calls and emails were not responded to by Lieutenant Sandra Brown head of internal affairs and media relations for the PAPD. A direction given by Palo Alto city attorney Donald Larkin SandraBrownVoiceMail

As of this story update, this discriminatory directive currently remains in effect.

GPS or similar device alleged to be used by the PAPD

The use of GPS tracking devices used by policing agency’s reached national attention when a student discovered a Global Positioning device [GPS] was attached to the undercarriage of his vehicle while having his car serviced.

It was later learned that the FBI had placed it there to track his whereabouts. [Muslim Student Finds FBI’s GPS Device On His Car]

4th Amendment advocated are up in arms in what appears to be a direct violation and circumventing of our constitution rights.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Violations of our constitution rights have become a common place occurrence nationally even our local policing agency remains silent and unwilling to debate and address these and other constitutional issues of police abuses including our civic leadership.  They can’t even address issues of Free Speech and won’t therefore touch police abuses.

Paving the way in challenging the alleged illegal use of Global Positioning Systems by various policing agency’s is a case currently before the United States Supreme Court brought on by:  CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY &
TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
to be heard this coming November.

Why is this so important?  “This is the first case where the Supreme Court will consider automatic, persistent, passive location tracking by law enforcement,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “The government can use location information over time to learn where you go to church, what sort of doctors you go to, what meetings and activities you participate in, and much more. Police should not have blanket permission to install GPS devices and collect detailed information about people’s movements over time without court review.”

Additionally, “If police are allowed to plant GPS devices wherever they please, that’s essentially blanket permission for widespread, ongoing police surveillance without any court supervision,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “It’s not hard to see how that kind of leeway would be abused. We hope the Supreme Court takes a close look at how this technology works and act to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.”

The moral of this story and in light of GPS Technology tracking devices covertly in use by policing agency’s nationally, all Palo Alto vehicle street inhabitants should thoroughly check and investigate the undercarriage of their vehicles for any evidence and or planting of Global Positioning System Devices by the Palo Alto Police Department.

Originally published on: Oct 16, 2011 @ 9:08

Voter Guide from The League of Women Voters

The following is a link to the League of Women Voters Smart Voter Guide:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/scl/vote/gray_t/

The League of Women Voters is one of the greatest contributors to local democracy. The above link is to the Candidate Information they post on the web.

Also, they host Candidate Forums so that voters can independently make a decision without just relying on Special Interest propaganda that has sometimes turned local elections into “anointment by the powerful” vs. the sacred exercise of the free will of the people.

Reaching out and inviting robust Citizen Participation and independent thinking are actions that I really support. Thank you League!

Timothy Gray (Candidate for Palo Alto City Council) www.vote4gray.com

$1,000.00 REWARD to Refute Evidence of the Crime Committed by PAPD

Should law enforcement officers be held accountable for fabricating evidence in order to falsely incriminate citizens of crimes?

Is there any set of circumstances which would justify a law enforcement officer the right to edit and falsify evidence in order to incriminate citizens of crimes?

If you answered yes to the first question and no to the second questions then I would like for you to contact California Attorney General Kamala Harris and request that she hold Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and his subordinate officers accountable for violating California Penal Code 141 (b).

AG Kamala Harris & SAAG Gerald Engler:

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11100   San Francisco, CA 94102-7004:

phone:  (415) 703-5500  or  (415) 703-1361         email:  gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov

 

 
If the government, the justice system, can edit and falsify evidence; edit and falsify audio/video recordings in order to wrongfully incriminate citizens of crimes and get away with it WITHOUT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE then we are not free and the Constitution is dead.

As an incentive to look into my allegation on your own time and outside of your jurisdiction for the purpose of upholding the integrity of the justice system as a whole I am providing a $1,000.00 incentive to the first person who can refute my allegation.

The FIRST law enforcement person who is a current sworn officer of the law of any state; or a former or current police chief; or a former or current state or federal prosecutor; or a former or current judge who can prove that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns and his subordinate officers DID NOT violate California Penal Code 141 (b) shall receive $1,000.00.

I am putting forth this proposition due to the most egregious nature of the offenses committed by the Palo Alto Police and significant entities within the justice system covering it up.  I am not only trying to obtain credible support for my allegations, but I am also trying to find out if there is any person in the entire justice system who has the integrity and conviction to place the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and Truth, and Justice and Accountability above personal gain.  There are thousands of law enforcement professionals who are considered pillars of society espousing the former traits, yet so far not one  who has been informed of the crimes of the Palo Alto Police is willing to hold a fellow law enforcement officer accountable for violating numerous laws eviscerating the very freedoms for which our Nation stands for.  Not one is even willing to speak up and simply make a statement to the proper investigative agencies to hold his/her fellow law enforcement officer accountable.

The thousand dollars is simply an incentive for participates to utilize a little of their own time in looking at the evidence of my case.  Hopefully if anyone who looks at the evidence and concludes that Chief Dennis Burns and his subordinate officers have violated California Penal Code 141(b) they will have the courage and the integrity to provide California State Attorney General Kamala Harris with his/her conclusions.

There are numerous other violations that could be addressed, however that would be too time consuming for the matter at hand.  A plethora of evidence regarding the other violations is provided to corroborate the destruction of evidence violation and to aid participants’ investigation of the evidence.   See http://chiefburns.weebly.com/index.html

 

Back Ground and History:

On March 15, 2008 three Palo Alto, California Police Officers: Manuel Temores; April Wagner; and Kelly Burger made contact with Joseph (Tony) Ciampi.  There is much dispute as to the actual happenings during that contact which resulted in two of the officers discharging their taser guns and Ciampi being arrested for felony resisting arrest.  See EXHIBIT 1L

Four audio/video recordings captured the incident and the two taser guns’ memory devices documented the electrical discharge.

Ciampi has alleged that all four audio/video recordings have been edited, altered and falsified, corroborated by forensic analysis, including that of the Santa Clara County Crime Lab which verified that 4 seconds of video footage is missing from Temores’ taser video.  See EXHIBIT 8

Ciampi also alleges that the taser guns’ memory devices, Data Ports, have been tampered with and that falsified taser gun activation reports were provided to the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the U.S. Federal Court in San Jose.  See EXHBIT 6

(Taser guns fire two taser probes per firing.)

The officers involved as well as Police Chief Dennis Burns have gone on record stating that only one taser gun, (Officer Burger’s), fired two taser probes and that Officer Temores dropped his taser cartridge on the ground to which it broke.

Department policy requires that all evidence is to be secured into property, however Chief Buns and his subordinate officers did not secure Temores’ taser cartridge into property and actually have admitted to destroying it.  Furthermore, photographs were taken of virtually every inch of the crime scene including broken sun-glasses; a bicycle helmet; Burger’s taser probes and taser cartridge yet not one photograph was taken of Ofc. Temores’ broken taser cartridge.  In fact, photographs were taken of Ofc. Temoers’ taser gun which had been reloaded with a new taser cartridge yet the officers did not take a photograph of Temores’ used/broken/destroyed taser cartridge.

The officers involved have gone on record stating that Ofc. Temores did not fire taser probes from his taser gun, however, Ofc. Burger is heard on his own MAV recording confirming with the medics at the scene of the incident minutes after the altercation occurred stating that two taser guns fired a total of 4 taser probes, 2 probes from each taser gun.

 

HERE IS THE ALLEGATION:

Chief Burns and his subordinate officers removed evidence from the crime scene taking photographs of that crime scene without the evidence, that evidence being Temores’ broken taser cartridge, in order to conceal that Temores actually fired taser probes from his taser gun.  (The police had to remove this evidence because the second taser gun firing is missing from the videos and the only logical reason why the second taser gun firing is missing is because it has been edited out of the videos).

In essence, the PAPD falsified and fabricated the crime scene by removing Temores’ taser cartridge, (probes, wires, AFIDS), and then photographed the crimes scene without temores’ taser cartridge, (probes, wires, AFIDS),  with the intent to produce the fabricated crime scene as genuine or true to the District Attorney and the courts when in fact it was not genuine or true and used that falsified crimes scene with the intent to incriminate Ciampi of a crime which is a violation of California Penal Code 141b.  Destroying Temores’ taser probes and cartridge violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause under Brady v. Maryland, California Gov. Code 34090.5.  and Calif. Penal Code 1054.1.

 

SEE ALL EVIDENCE AT EXHIBIT 5

In order to receive the $1,000.00 a participant in this inquiry must prove that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns is not aware that his subordinate officers destroyed Officer Manual Temores’ taser probes, taser wires, taser cartridge and AFIDS.  Additionally, said particpant must prove that Chief Burns’ subordinate officers accurately documented the crimes scene with their photographs and other measures.  Furthermore, said participant must prove that Chief Burns’ subordinate officers documented and secured Temores’ taser cartridge, taser probes, taser wires and AFIDS into evidence/property pursuant to California Penal Code 1054.1, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause under Brady v. Maryland and California Gov. Code 34090.5.

Proving that Police Chief Dennis Burns did not violate CA P.C. 141b is not enough.  You must prove that Chief Burns and that every one of his subordinate officers did not violate CA P.C. 141b in regards to Officer Temores’ Taser probes; wires; cartridge; and AFIDS.

If not actually directing his subordinate officers to destroy the evidence, Chief Burns has condoned and endorsed the destruction of evidence implicating him through California’s conspiracy law, Penal Code 182 and or aiding and abetting P.C. 32.

 

SUBMISSIONS:

To submit your findings go to the bottom of this page and enter your findings in the Reply area.

This REWARD shall end on October 31 2012.   All submissions for the REWARD must be received by 11:59 pm Pacific Standard Time October 31, 2012.

The reward shall go to only the first participant who meets the eligibility requirements listed above and who successfully proves that the culpable Palo Alto Police Officers did not violate CA P.C. 141(b).

Jim Kouri,, vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled a group of traits that define psychopathic personalities — like serial killers — and has discovered that these trait also apply to many of today’s politicians.

“While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.”      http://www.viewzone.com/politicians.html

What makes a law enforcer less susceptible to the human failings then the law maker?

My hope is that many law enforcement personnel will look at the evidence objectively and request that Attorney General Kamala Harris hold corrupt cops accountable for to allow them to violate the law unchecked erodes the freedoms which they have sworn to protect and defend.

LAWS

Contact:  pressstrong@gmail.com

Ear Mites Case a Rarity, Report Finds

A man whose ear had itched for two months turned out to have mites crawling in his ear canal, a new case report says.

The 70-year-old man in Taiwan also reported feeling a sense of fullness in the right ear, but had no hearing impairment, ringing in his ears or discharge. Upon looking into the man’s ear canal, doctors discovered mites and mite eggs, belonging to a species identified as the house-dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, according to a report of the man’s case published Thursday (Oct. 4) in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Having mites in one’s ear, a condition formally called otoacariasis, is pretty rare, said Dr. Ian Storper, director of otology at the New York Head & Neck Institute at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. The video the Taiwan doctors captured of the mites crawling in the man’s ear shows the typical swelling of the ear tissue, and debris in the ear canal that is found in such infections, he said.

“It’s much more common to see a cockroach in the ear,” Storper said, estimating that he’s seen a few dozen cases of cockroaches, but only two cases involving mites. Most of the time, the cockroach is dead inside the ear canal when the patient comes in — the difficulty that insects have in walking backward may account for their inability to get out. If it’s alive, the patient is likely to report hearing a buzzing sound, along with their pain, he said.

Dr. Richard Nelson, vice chair of emergency medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said that he’s learned — after seeing cases of mosquitos, gnats, and at least a dozen cockroaches in ears over his three decades in medicine — that sometimes it’s better to tell the patient about the bug after it has been extracted.

In the first cockroach-in-the-ear case he saw as a medical resident, the female patient became so agitated that he thought he might have to sedate her in order to remove the insect.

“She was really freaked out,” Nelson said, and he’s had other patients who, upon being told about the creature lurking in their ear canals, start screaming or running around — which makes them very hard to treat.

“Now, I just say, I think I see the problem, I’m going to put some stuff in your ear,” and tell them about it after the cockroach is out, he said. Some patients are surprisingly calm upon hearing the news, and one patient even told him he’d had a cockroach in his ear before, he said.

Nelson also said he now sometimes knows, before he looks in the ear, what he’s likely to see. “Patients with cockroaches in their ear always show up at 2 a.m. — they wake up with sudden onset of ear pain,” because the bug crawled in while they were sleeping, he said.

Typically, treatment involves irrigating the ear canal — oil, alcohol, or an anesthetic might be used. The irrigation may flush out the bug, or tiny forceps might be used to pull out the critter.

“It’s very important to pull out the whole thing,” Storper said. Sometimes, he said, a bug’s legs may get stuck or fall apart, leaving leggy bits behind. “If you leave legs, you can get a bacterial infection. They’re dirty, they’ve been crawling everywhere,” he said.

In the Taiwan case, the doctors reported treating the patient with eardrops containing an antifungal agent, an antibacterial agent, an anti-inflammatory medicine and an anti-mite medication. The typical treatment for mites in the ear is an anti-mite drug, Storper said, and the other drugs likely helped reduce the risk of other infections.

Two months after treating the Taiwan man, the doctors followed up with him and reported that his symptoms had completely resolved. In most cases, pain and other symptoms go away within a few days of treatment, Storper said.

Pass it on: Ear mites are relatively rare, a new report finds.

By Karen Rowan, MyHealthNewsDaily Managing Editor | LiveScience.com