Crime Lab Cover Up?

Ian Fitch, Director Santa Clara County Crime Lab

Ian FitchMr. Fitch,

Your crime lab verified that audio/video footage has been removed from a Taser video could you please explain how physically removing evidence from a video is not considered tampering with, editing and falsifying the evidence?  CLICK HERE:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html

You are quoted as stating,  “I do believe…. the desire in society to develop investigative leads to potentially result in the prosecution of very serious crimes.”

Does that include Police Officers who violate the law and Constitution?

On March 23, 2011 I sent you a complaint regarding the production of erroneous crime lab reports by your staff in order to conceal the editing and falsifying of audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data by members of the Palo Alto Police Department.  It has been over two years and you have not responded to my inquiry despite the plethora of evidence I have sent you.

For Example Being Two Different Places At Once:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/four.html 

7b two places

Therefore I have some questions for you and the staff involved, Criminalists: Mario Soto, Christopher Corpora and John Bourke.  Most of what you will see I have already sent you, so you should be familiar with the evidence provided.

Should you refuse to address my allegations by either refuting them or verifying them I will have to conclude that you are not capable of holding your staff accountable contradicting spokesman Nick Muyo.

“It’s in our best interest to make sure the foren­sic work is fair and con­sis­tent.  It’s the DA’s rep­u­ta­tion and the rep­u­ta­tion of the office,” spokesman Nick Muyo said.    “For peo­ple who are saying we can’t inves­ti­gate our­selves, our response is we stand the most to lose so it would behoove us to do a complete and thorough investigation.”

Thus, issuing a statement that you disagree with my findings as DA Jeff Rosen has is not sufficient Mr. Fitch.

DA Jeff Rosen is quoted as stating, “Our criminalists are outstanding forensic scientists who use their skills, experience, and knowledge to solve crimes, enhance transparency and promote justice for the community we serve.”

It is a verifiable fact that the videos and taser gun activation data of the March 15, 2008 incident has been tampered with, the question you need to pose to your staff is why they did not Integrityobtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data when it was within their power to do so back in 2008 when your lab was first informed?

The MAV videos were recorded to Tamper proof hard drives in which you could have obtained the original unadulterated videos.   Eventually Chief Burns would destroy those hard drives in violation of his department’s policy.

Hard Drives, Click Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/two.html

Additionally, why do you and your staff presently refuse to obtain the original recordings and issue truthful analysis of the evidence verifying that the videos and taser guns have been tampered with rendering falsified recordings and data?

Perhaps your office did obtain the original MAV recordings and did not like what you saw and there for suppressed those unadulterated videos to protect the corrupt cops.

Sheriff Laurie Smith’s allegation that there is an inherent conflict of interest in your crime lab being controlled by the DA would be validated should DA Jeff Rosen refuse to allow you to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence and allegations put forth in this inquiry.

Please keep in mind that upon being informed of the falsified videos on August 18, 2008 the DA’s office allowed the PAPD to hold onto the evidence for at least three weeks and possibly longer.  Additionally, it is current Police Chief Dennis Burns who requested the analysis of the falsified evidence, yet he himself was and is involved in the tampering of evidence.  

Several felonies were committed by numerous officers in the Palo Alto Police Department corroborated with credible evidence and instead of obtaining a warrant from a judge to obtain the evidence on August 18/19, 2008, the DA allowed the suspects to hold onto the evidence for a minimum of three weeks, probably longer, enabling the suspects to destroy the evidence and determine which evidence to turn over to the DA and your crime lab.

Do you think that’s how it would work if someone provided you with a photograph of numerous bags of cash and white powder being removed from a vehicle and placed into a private garage?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

We shouldn’t be surprised, DDA Deborah Medved and others in the DA’s office, Philip Charlebois, suppressed evidence throughout my criminal case in violation of the law and Constitution, but that is for the next article and the book.  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-2.html                                                                                See Section I of Exhibit ONE:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-1.html

So Mr. Fitch, lets start with Criminalist Christopher Corpora.

ONE:     Mr. Corpora analyzed the Taser Videos and MAV videos to determine if they had been tampered with.  Mr. Corpora completed his analysis on or about October 8, 2009.

Since Ofc. Temores’ MAV video did not have any audio, Mr. Corpora mated Temores’ MAV video to Burger’s MAV audio, that’s called editing and falsifying the evidence if you didn’t’ know.

Mr. Corpora, you claim that no editing occurred yet you do not document in your report that the dialog of “your not making it easy” (Statement ‘A’) has been removed from Burger’s MAV recording and the dialog of, “or I’m going to taser you” has been removed from Burger’s Taser recording.

Audio Evidence Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/one.html

TWO:     It is humanly impossible for the same person to make two separate statements at exactly the same time.  Therefore the only explanation as to how the two statements made by Officer Burger at exactly the same time in that the recordings is that the recordings have been tampered with.  The above evidence proves that “time” and footage is missing from Burger’s MAV recording and since Burger’s MAV recording is in sync with Temores’ MAV recording the above evidence proves that Temores’ MAV video is missing footage as well.

Mr. Corpora, Officer Temores testified that the battery to his microphone ran out of power which is why there is no audio on his MAV recording, yet you documented that Temores’ MAV system picked up a low-volume audio recording.  Can you explain how Temores’ MAV picked up audio when his microphone had no power to pick up any audio?  To the average person there shouldn’t be anything heard on the recording because there was NO MICROPHONE to record  any audio.

Battery Evidence Here:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/three.html

Though Temores and the PAPD have asserted that his microphone ran out of power, that was highly unlikely given that the battery was fully powered when Temores went on duty.

Since there is audio, how come you did not, “pull it out” as it appears that you are capable of?

There is other evidence of audio editing in the recordings which you can find, that is if you want to find it.

THREE:     Mr. Corpora you concluded that there are no scenes recorded on the Taser videos that have not been recorded on Temores’ MAV video.

Here are THREE SCENES that have been recorded onto the taser videos yet were not recorded onto Temores’ MAV video verifying that video footage has been removed from Temores’ MAV video.

Missing Video:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/five.html

FOUR:    Mr. Corpora you concluded that the MAV videos have not been tampered with.  You even contacted Kustom Signals, the manufacturer of the MAV systems to help with the analysis in which you discuss analyzing the metadata.

Mr. Corpora you are paid a lot of money to conduct professional, thorough and truthful analyses of evidence, how come you chose not to analyze the watermark that is created for the purpose of diagnosing whether a Kustom Signals’ MAV video has been tampered with or not?

Watermark:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/six.html

FIVE:     Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger Testified under Penalty of Perjury that he drew his taser gun TWO separate times from his holster and that his taser gun was in his holster while he pulled me from the vehicle and up against the fence.  (Just so you know that’s not what happened, what truly happened has been removed from the video).

The Audio/Video footage from Burger’s own taser video contradicts his statement exposing him as committing perjury in an attempt to explain why there is missing video footage from his taser video.

Burger’s Perjury:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/seven.html

The question you need to ask is, why would Ofc. Burger commit perjury unnecessarily?

SIX:     Mr. Corpora you document in your report that there are three breaks in time in both taser videos, yet I only see two breaks in time on the taser videos.  Could you point out the third break in time in the taser videos?

Additionally Mr. Corpora, you verified that 4 seconds of audio/video footage is missing from Temores’ Taser video.

How can you conclude that no editing has occurred with this empiricle evidence to the contrary has been produced by you?

 Missing Taser Video:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eight.html

Mr. Corpora given the above empirical evidence, how is possible for you to come to a conclusion that the recordings have not been tampered with?

SEVEN:    Mr. Bourke, you initially analyzed the taser cameras, taser gun and taser videos from the original taser hard drive.  The falsified taser gun activation report given to the DA states that Temores discharged electricity from his taser gun one time for five seconds, yet Officer Temores testified under penalty of perjury that he discharged electricity two separate times.

Temores Perjury:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/nine.html

Why would Ofc. Temores commit perjury unnecessarily?

EIGHT:     Mr. Bourke, in your analysis you do not document downloading the taser gun activation data and comparing it to the taser videos.  You downloaded the taser videos directly from the taser cameras with the same cable that is capable of downloading the taser gun activation data and you documented the duration of the videos but you did not document number to times and duration of taser gun discharges, why?

That would have been a very simple, inexpensive and verifiable means to prove or disprove that the taser videos had been tampered with.

Maybe you did download the Taser gun activation data and you didn’t like what saw.

Mr. Bourke you could have figured out that the taser gun data ports had been tampered with by comparing the illuminated taser wire with the taser gun activation data.

Taser Gun Discharge:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/ten.html

NINE:     You did note that some of the taser video frames were improperly indexed, (not in chronological order), and tried to access the original download area on the original computer but were prevented from doing so.  Instead of gaining access to that area of the computer you chose to cease your investigation.

Bourke Ceases Investigation:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/eleven.html  

Why didn’t you want to find out what was on the original taser hard drive?  Why didn’t you want to recover the original unadulterated taser videos?

In the process of my civil suit I subsequently proved that both taser guns’ data ports have been tampered with and that Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns submitted falsified taser gun activation data to the courts.  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-6.html

TEN:     Officer Burger is heard on his own MAV recording stating that he himself felt electricity from his own taser wires, yet Burger does not come into contact with his taser wires during the two second discharge documented on his activation report.  But more, importantly, Andrew Hinz, Taser International’s Director of Technical Services, verified that no electricity was discharged into Ofc. Burger’s taser wires after analyzing those taser wires.

Why would Ofc. Burger without any prompting state that he felt electricity from his taser guns’ taser wires minutes after he fired his taser gun when according the Manufacturer no electricity traveled through the wires?

If no electricity was discharged through Officer Burger’s taser wires, why would officer Burger testify under penalty of perjury to the contrary unnecessarily?

Taser Wire Contradiction:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/twelve.html

The reason why Mr. Hinz documents that no electricity was discharged into Burger’s taser wires is because he did not analyze Burger’s taser wires, he was probably given Temores’ taser wires, the taser wires which Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns has asserted were destroyed in violation of Palo Alto Police Department Policy.

Why was Temores’ taser wires, taser probes and taser cartridge destroyed?  They were destroyed because Temores fired two probes from his taser gun during the incident and the audio/video footage of that Taser gun firing has been removed from the videos.           See Here:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-5.html

removal of taser probe

The Palo Alto Police removed Temores’ taser probes, taser wires and taser cartridge from the crime scene and then took photos of the crime scene in order to falsely portray that crime scene with the intent of using that fabricated crime scene to incriminate me with a felony.  This act by the PAPD is a violation of P.C. 141(b).

Now Mr. Hinz is the same person who has asserted under penalty of perjury that Taser Camera V07-065373 was first sent to the Palo Alto Police on November 26, 2008, yet the 2008 Taser Download Report documents TASER CAM V07-065373 being downloaded on January 9, 2008, ELEVEN months earlier.  And Police Chief Dennis Burns stated that TASER CAM V07-065373 is the TASER CAM he took into possession from Officer Burger on August 29, 2008 and that Officer Burger used this camera on March 15, 2008.

See Evidence Here:  http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html

and here: http://chiefburns.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/2008_download_report_taser_serial_numbers.pdf

So the question is, how did the Palo Alto Police download Taser camera V07-065373 on January 9, 2008 when they did not even possess it at that time?

As incredible as that sounds, Andrew Hinz initially documented that taser cameras V06-015020 and V06-015020 recorded the March 15, 2008 incident and that these two taser cameras were sent to Taser International for repair and subsequently destroyed.

See Evidence Here:   http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit-7.html

Mr. Fitch, even though I have provided you significantly more evidence proving my allegations of tampering than the above, the above is proof enough.

Now that is a lot to digest, however you have had a couple of years to address my allegations but have refused to do so.  I had provided evidence of the MAV tampering as early as September 10, 2008.

I know that you and your staff’s perspective of me has been manipulated by the falsified video.  All I can say is that your perspective would change if you could see and hear the unadulterated videos.

Mr. Fitch you know that the videos have been edited, given the video footage that remains, why would the PAPD remove video footage unnecessarily?  Obviously, Officers Burger, Temores and Wagner did something that they did not want you or anyone else to see and it surely was not something something trivial nature, it must have been something extremely outrageous to motivate them to commit felonies by falsifying the evidence.

Why don’t you obtain that missing video footage and taser gun activation data and then make your decision and evaluation based upon all of the true facts instead basing your view on a fabricated video that is missing 24 to 30 seconds of video footage?

As improbable as that sounds, cogitate on that for a while and think about how Barron Pikes was electrocuted to death from a taser gun by a police officer who refused to stop shocking him even though he was not resisting.

http://chiefburns.weebly.com/taser-death.html

Mr. Fitch, should you ever obtain the unadulterated videos and taser gun activation data you will discover that Officer Burger shocked me for a minimum of 20 seconds, probable closer to 25 seconds.

There are lot of people in the justice system who believe that if a police officer is beating a citizen to death even though that citizen is not resisting, that citizen cannot defend themselves and therefore must allow the police officer to kill them.

Are you one of those people Mr. Fitch?

Example “A”
Suppose a police officer verbally antagonizes and falsely arrests a gang-member who is hanging out on the corner for no apparent reason.  And then suppose that officer starts beating on that gang member and steals that gang member’s money and other possessions but lets that gang member go free after he, the cop, takes the gang members possessions.  Should this cop be arrested and prosecuted for false arrest, robbery and use of excessive force?  Is this a cop whom you would consider a good person and should be a police officer?

Example “B”
Now suppose another police officer does all of the above with the exception of robbery to a person who is not a gang member, to a person who does not have a criminal record, but to a person who is simply just poor and then destroys and falsifies evidence, (falsifies videos), in order to wrongfully incriminate the poor person if a crime to place that poor person in prison simply because that poor person is poor.

Of the two scenarios above, which one is the more serious crime, the more egregious offense and is the greater violation of our society’s morays?  Should the cop in example “B” be thoroughly investigated and brought to justice for his acts just as the cop in example ‘”A,” or should you just let him go because most of the time he’s a likable guy?

Stutchman’s Forensic Report:  Stutchman’s Report https___ecf.cand.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pl_file=7384829-0–29335

John Bourke’s Report:  213 Bourke M081017

Christopher Corpora’s Report:  211 Corpora Analysis

Mario Soto’s Report:  212 Soto Analysis

Mr. Soto you verified that the hash values were different indicating that the taser videos had been tampered with according to MIT:  http://sccrimelab.weebly.com/thirteen.html    and

http://chiefburns.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/5/2/3852497/mit_hash_value_article.pdf

Call to Council Members, buy your own meals

At a time when city governments are telling us that they have to cut back on services because they don’t have the money, it’s funny that they have the money to buy dinners for council members.

Los Altos Council Steak Dinner
Los Altos City Council Steak Dinner

Los Altos, for instance, spends $130 to $150 before every meeting feeding its five council members. Receipts reviewed by the Post show some council members got steaks.

Meals are typically consumed during a closed-door session, which keeps this practice out of the public eye.

Palo Alto has been feeding its council members for years, but, stopped the practice about a year right after the dot-com bust.  The temporary suspension of council meals was a belt-tightening measure.

A year later, the food was back. Atherton and Menlo Park also provided free meals, so they typically ordered sandwiches or pizza, not steaks.

In Los Altos, however, council members are e-mailed menus before a meeting to pick what they want to eat.

When the Post first printed a story about these meals on March 29, the defense offered by the cities was that council members were coming to the meeting straight from their daytime jobs, and didn’t have time for dinner at home.

Palo Alto City Council Member Larry Klein
Palo Alto City Council Member Larry Klein

Palo Alto Councilman Larry Klein said he didn’t want council-members rushing through meetings because they’re hungry.

Why can’t council members pack a brown bag dinner, and bring it with them? Why should taxpayers pay for these meals?

This sets a bad example for city employees who have the ability to charge meals to the taxpayers in certain instances.

They’ll see it and think, “Why can’t I do that? The city’s got plenty of money.”

And it undermines the argument that our cities have cut their budgets to the bone when council members feast on T-bone steaks.

The Daily Post Opinion – Dave Price Editor:

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

The City of Palo Alto announces the 91st Annual May Fête Children’s Parade

@PaloAltoPerry
@PaloAltoPerry

The City of Palo Alto announces the 91st Annual May Fête Children’s Parade on Saturday, May 4, 2013 in downtown Palo Alto. Northern California’s oldest and largest children’s parade begins at 10 a.m. at the corner of Emerson Street and University Avenue.

This year’s theme, “What Will You Discover!” celebrates the finding of that special activity or talent that is a child’s “spark” that unleashes their energy and joy.

While pre-registration for youth groups has passed, individual kids who show up by 9:30a.m. the morning of the parade and march in the Kids on Parade category.

The morning will be filled with spirited entertainment from local high school and junior high school marching bands, decorated hand-pulled floats, and thousands of children marching, skating, cycling, tumbling, and strolling through downtown Palo Alto.

The Palo Alto Weekly judges the float contest, giving out prizes in several categories in this fun-filled friendly competition. Following the parade, join the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Palo Alto Kiwanis Club for the May Fete Fair, the annual celebratory fair with food, music and games at Heritage Park immediately following the Parade until 1pm.

For more information please call 650-463-4921 or visit us online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/recreation.

This exciting event is presented by the City of Palo Alto Recreation Division and is sponsored by the Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Hobee’s of California, University Art, Stanford Park Nannies, Insurance by Allied Arts, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and Palo Alto Sport Shop & Toy World.

Special-need park project lands $1 million donation

www.magicalbridge.comThe Magical Bridge, a proposed playground in Palo Alto for children with disabilities, took one step closer to reality yesterday when the Peery Foundation announced a $1 million matching grant to build the park.

The first-of-its kind playground will be designed specifically for children and adults with disabilities, including special equipment that will make it easier for people with physical, mental and visual impairments to play.

“The Magical Bridge Project has already received $1.1 million in individual donations towards its $3.1 million goal,” said Jill Asher, a spokeswoman for the project. “The grant, plus the $1 million in matching funds will allow the project to break ground by this fall.”

Olenka Villarreal, who founded the project, said the Silicon Valley is the perfect place for such park.

“It still astounds me that we are building the first place to address the many different play needs of the many different kinds of children who live in our community. “she said.

For more information, visit http://www.magicalbridge.org

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

Freedom Demands Justice, Justice Demands Truth

Freedom demands truth     When the government can fabricate audio/video recordings in order to incriminate citizens of crimes then we are no longer FREE.

When the government can destroy the evidence of their crimes committed against private citizens with impunity, then we are no longer FREE.

When the government can appoint judges who have dictatorial powers of ruling against the law and the Constitution for the purpose of concealing the crimes of government agents, then we are no longer FREE.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by any body.”  Thomas Paine

disguise

Palo Alto Daily Post Raises Hell – One Readers Perspective

Dave Price - Editor and Co-Founder of The Daily Post“It’s a newspapers duty to print the news and raise hell” (Wilbur F. Storey of the Chicago Times, 1861).

No newspaper hereabouts is upholding those aims better than the Daily Post.

Examples include the Post’s:

. fearless exposure of out of control salaries and retirement benefits of public officials;
. publishing hard-to-ferret-out salaries of layers of administrators and employees from assistant fire chiefs to park gardeners and street sweepers;
. reporting of changes in street patterns and lanes by ignorant transportation agencies without public airing.

Public servants shun the media spotlight like spiders scampering from sunlight unless they need it for boasting or votes.

I agree that the best protection for the public interest is by a vigilant newspaper with an unblinking scrutiny of those who serve us.

Post Editor Dave Price, who is confrontational but always fair, belongs in that elite watchdog corps of the late Mike Wallace of “60 minutes”.

Vic Befera

Palo Alto

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

The Daily Post:  Monday, April 15th, 2013

Did Lack of Deterrence Contribute to Sexual Assault of Audrie Potts?

Did the DA’s failure to hold De Anza baseball players to the same standard of evidence and justice that is now being applied to the high school kids in the Audrie Potts’ case encourage the current high school kids to allegedly sexually assault their class mate?

One of the primary objectives of laws is to deter members in society from committing acts that harm others.  For a law to posses that force of “deterrence,” the law must be enforced consistently and equally to all people at all times.

If members in society see other members commit a certain reprehensible act without being held criminally accountable then the force of deterrence no longer exists for the latter believe that they too can perpetrate the same act[s] that the former committed without being held accountable.

I believe that this is what occurred with the boys who allegedly sexually assaulted Audrie Potts.

In 2007 a young woman was allegedly sexually assaulted at house party by several De Anza baseball players yet no charges were filed.  In 2012 Audrie Potts is allegedly sexually assaulted by several class mates at a house party.

In the 2007 case then DA Dolores Carr stated, “prosecution was impossible, largely because the victim herself had no memory of what happened to her.”

Yet in the 2012 case, Audrie Potts had no memory of what occurred either.  “I have a reputation for a night I don’t remember.”

In the 2007 case the victim went to a party where there were boys and alcohol with no adult supervision.

In the 2012/13 case the victim went to a party where there were boys and alcohol with no adult supervision.

Both victims passed out drunk in a private room unable to consent to or deny sexual acts.

Post party, both victims adamantly assert that they did not consent to sex with multiple people.

The similarities between the two cases are striking, yet with one major difference, in the 2007 case no charges were filed yet in the 2012/13 case charges have been filed.

Regarding the 2007 case, DA Dolores Carr would go on to state, “I can’t make up evidence.” 

In most people’s minds, suppressing evidence, that is not obtaining all of the facts when available in order to most fully portray the truthful events is actually making up evidence, for the act of suppressing evidence has the affect of distorting the truth which has the same affect of making up evidence both of which pervert justice.

In the 2007 case the DA went out of her way to minimize the evidence against the suspects.

Lab supervisor Lynne Burley, who works for the DA, testified in the deposition that testing ceased after somebody from the DA’s office notified her that ‘no further testing was needed,” the Mercury reported.’

“The story quoted Sheriff Smith as saying she was disappointed that the DA had shut down the probe. Smith said it was an ‘inherent conflict of interest’ for the crime lab to be part of the DA’s office, saying, ‘We’re the investigators, they’re the prosecutors.’

In the 2007 case, female soccer players came to the rescue of the victim and took her to a hospital for treatment.

After Jeff Rosen replaced Dolores Carr as DA he reopened the case and concluded that “the investigation found that the suspects had sex with an intoxicated girl while other men watched and that one man tried to keep others from coming into the bedroom.”

By using force to keep the soccer players from coming into the room where the victim was being sexually assaulted would constitute, “False Imprisonment” a violation of P.C. 236.  Additionally, the act to prevent others from seeing what you’re doing to someone else demonstrates that the person knew what he was doing was wrong and therefore possessed the guilty mind, “Mens rea,” required to convict someone of a crime.

Had Attorney General Jerry Brown,  District Attorneys Dolores Carr and Jeff Rosen held the De Anza baseball players to the same standard of evidence and justice that Jeff Rosen is applying now to the high school kids who allegedly sexually assaulted Audrie Potts perhaps the high school kids would have been deterred from committing the same act as the De Anza baseball players and Audrie Potts would be alive today.

Based upon the evidence and the similarities between the two cases DA Jeff Rosen has denied equal justice of the law to the De Anza victim.

Did Scott Righetti’s relationship to San Francisco Giants Pitching Coach Dave Righetti influence the DA’s office not to pursue charges?

 

LINKS:

Audrie Pott’s Parents Speak Out About Daughter’s Assault, Suicide,  Victims family posted on FB Friday that the male teens who allegedly attacked her tried to cover up their actions

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Audrie-Potts-Parents-to-Speak-Out-About-Daughters-Assault-Suicide-203013581.html

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/elections-near-sexual-assault-case-re-enters-headlines-2197

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7770924

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/10/14/da-declines-to-file-charges-in-de-anza-baseball-team-rape-case/

The jury in the civil suit brought by the De Anza victim found that the two remaining defendants were not liable, but that they, jury, would have held other defendants liable had they remained apart of the lawsuit.

“It was exactly the wrong guys in my mind,” said juror Courtney Ridings, a schoolteacher. ‘We were very angry we were left with these two.’  Juror No. 3, a 47-year-old San Jose widow, agreed.  ‘If there had been other defendants left in the case — and it was a travesty there weren’t — this verdict would have looked a lot different,’ she said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_17519573

http://www.orovillemr.com/ci_17437279?source=most_viewed

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17793153

Open letter to the US Supreme Court (for publication)

April 8, 2013

An open letter to the US Supreme Court, RE: proposed legal rights for those that practice homosexual sex.

Honorable US Supreme Court Justices,

“Homosexual civil rights” is an oxymoron.

Popular support and practice of homosexuality puts humans on the endangered species list. Homosexuality is the ultimate anti-civil behavior since homo + homo = 0 +/- HIV AIDS! Those that practice homosexuality already have the right to be civil just as they have the right to choose homosexual sex, which is non-compulsory in that one can choose to abstain from sexual relations just as one can choose what kind of sex to engage in and with whom or what within the law; (children never an option). This means they do not qualify for minority status protection.

Organized religion and the practice of homosexuality are, by and large, mutually exclusive. Homoelectives are the ones that zealously watchdog an absolute separation of church and state. They protest and vandalize public religious displays and symbols like the Cross, the Star of David, Ten Commandment Tablets, Nativity Scenes and also buildings used for religious purposes.

They protest non-denominational and even silent prayer in public schools, the name “God” where ever it appears in public, especially in the Pledge of Allegiance, and any public school activities with remote religious connections while promoting their homosexual agenda and atheistic brand of religion in the public schools with the help of the National Education Association. Homoelectives actively fight traditional religious civil rights that have been enjoyed by the God-fearing since the founding of our country, which was founded in part for freedom to enjoy those rights; and the persecution will get worse with legalized homosexual (gay, same sex) marriage.

While the US Constitution prohibits the government from requiring a religious test as a “qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” in Article 6, the First Amendment only states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I maintain that the US Federal Government has established a law with regard to theism, which is atheism.

The words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution; so an absolute separation of church and state, to the degree of censoring and banning public religious expression in the free exercise of religion which are both protected under the constitution, is patently unconstitutional on its face! Homoelectives know this and are pushing to override the Constitution of the United States with a United Nations sovereignty; which qualifies the gay-rights movement as traitorous!

In the absence of anti-sodomy or related laws, consenting same-sex adults have the right to privately engage in risky, unnatural and destructive sexual relations for their own perverted pleasure; with no redeeming social value. They do this while demanding the right to risk contaminating our nation’s blood supply with the HIV / AIDS virus in the name of equality and civil rights. Homoelectives should not be given the legal right, however, to their brutish unbridled passion within the bonds of marriage.

Marriage is, and always has been, ordained by God for His purpose in multiplying and replenishing the earth with His spirit-born children in an orderly familial fashion; and in turn bring to pass their immortality and eternal life. This process is not possible with a homosexual couple and is another reason why homosexual or “gay or same-sex” marriage is an oxymoron; and why a person that prefers homosexual sex, to the extent of practicing it, is an enemy to God.

Homoelectives are also enemies to mankind (which literally means “Godlike”, as Man is one of our Heavenly Father’s names) for yet another reason. Earth is a living soul; which means its physical body contains an immortal body of intelligent spirit matter. The last time she ran a fever from a human corruption of filthiness and violence on her face, she prayed to her Creator for relief; as no unclean thing can enter into the presence of God. She was then cleansed and cooled with a great deluge. The baptism of fire follows the baptism of water, so the current fever will be allowed to run its course. It would be significantly abated, however, if homoelectives would repent and be cleansed and cooled with a baptismal deluge.

Please discourage this gross crime against nature, God, our country and civilization by upholding Proposition 8 in California and the United States Defense of Marriage Act, and deny marriage and anti-discrimination protection to homoelectives; as the constitution tolerates the limitation of the civil rights of criminals. Remember that you are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America; not the fowl Obama administration that ducks it with its walk and talk.

Abraham Lincoln warned us that: “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” I pray that our nation will still be in existence when Christ the Lord, the Son of Man and architect of the Constitution of the United States of America, returns.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Jarvis
P.O. Box 356
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
(801) 706-2740
jarviseutics@netzero.com

P.S. I imagine the UN’s biggest roadblock would be the Second Amendment.
*Be advised that the LGBT (gay rights) activists are trying to revoke the Boy Scouts tax exempt status for charitable contributions because of their long standing moral code.

Obama’s Budget, Funneling the Money Through the Poor to the Rich

Dear Editor,

I own several low income apartment buildings.  Obama’s tax proposal will increase my federal tax by a million dollars a year.  Fortunately the Pres is also going to increase the federal minimum wage which is the wage many of my tenants receive.

Obama has put forward an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 per hour ostensibly to put more money in the pockets of the working poor.  John, who works full-time at a nationally recognized coffee retailer will see his after tax monthly income jump $248 from $1,110 to $1,358.

Like many others, John currently rents a 400 sq. ft studio apartment for $700 month from me.  Knowing that John will have an extra $248 to spend each month I will simply raise John’s rent from $700 to $950. Multiplying that by the hundreds of other tenants in my buildings I will actually end up with more take home pay each year even with the tax increase.

Obamas' RuseIn addition to the many residential buildings that I own, I also own a large grocery retail chain.  President Obama’s minimum wage increase will significantly decrease my profit margin.

In order to compensate for the 24% loss in profit I will simply pass the labor cost onto the customers by increasing the cost of my products by 24%.  I could also use this loss as a cover to actually increase my profit margin by increasing the costs of my products by 30%.

In the end the President has given John more money to spend on housing and food yet less housing and food for the money that John spends.

This is what you should expect from a person who wants Americans to smoke cigarettes to help pay his and every other government employees’ salaries.

Obama seeks to fund the government with $78 billion over ten years from taxes on cigarettes. That will require that a lot of Americans smoke a lot of cigarettes resulting in a lot of cancers and disease increasing medical costs by 2 trillion dollars to ObamaCare which is funded by all Americans in the form of other taxes.

DA exploits pay loophole

Jeff Rosen DeceiverSanta Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has found a loophole to compensate his employees for a 5% pay cut by giving attorneys paid time off that doesn’t impact their accrued vacation time, his office confirmed yesterday.

In order to skirt 5% cuts for upper management

And, after Rosen said he was not only aware of the practice, but also encouraged it, the county has launched its own investigation into the process.

Rosen is giving some of his upper level attorneys administrative leave thousands of hours in total so that they don’t have to use their vacation time after their bonuses were cut in September of 2011.

An NBC investigation sparked action by county executive Jeff Smith who alerted the board of supervisors county auditor and the County Council of the DA’s policy.

“I directed this to happen. I wanted this to happen. This is exactly what I wanted to happen,” Rosen told NBC.

“It was unfair and unprecedented that there 5% differential was taken away so after long and careful thought and deliberation, I instituted a policy.”

That policy crosses out vacation time hours on time sheets and relabels them and administrative leave. Administrative leave is given to employees at the supervisor’s discretion, generally after extensive over working.

An ‘unfair’ policy

Former Santa Clara County Public defender Aram James told the Post yesterday that he thinks the policy is unfair to the criminal justice system.

“I’m sure that Jeff was well intentioned in wanting to give his employees the best possible pay,” James said. But there are other serious considerations, such as the problems with our budget right now it looks unfair.”

He said other departments work just as hard as the high-level District attorneys such as public defenders, paralegals and administrative assistants.

James said although there are a lot to admire in Rosen, this move strikes him as not one of his best qualities. “I was surprised because Jeff is a very intelligent guy who knows we are in a budget crisis,” he said.

Palo Alto resident and economic critic Wayne Martin told the Post yesterday that Rosen claimed he was going to be an “ethical DA,” yet,”  This little episode doesn’t exactly pass the smell test.”

Martin said it’s possible too that the administrative leave the attorneys are receiving is well above the bonuses equivalent. The base salary for a high level District Attorney was $192,000 in 2012. Last year, Rosen himself made a salary of $283,195.

Article powered by Dragon Dictation an ipad App

By: The Daily Post