Locking Legal Horns – “I could keep going” – Tony Ciampi

Locking Legal Horns

Tony Ciampi has once again demonstrated the power of his legal prowess in a resent email exchange with city attorney Donald Larkin over the releasing of Ciampi’s tazer video to the media as playing dirty pool.

Mr. Ciampi did not receive an invitation to this event and for that matter either did I.

Note the absence of any legal arguments coming from TOP city attorney for the City of Palo Alto Donald Larkin.

Yea Tony – Looks like your getting ready to push him off the cliff…..Is it any wonder why city attorney Donald Larkin is so frustrated?  Has he met his match?

From: Tony Ciampi [mailto:t.ciampi@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:15 AM
To: Larkin, Donald; City Attorney; Council, City; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org
Subject: Palo Alto City Attorney Don Larkin To Hold Another Showing of the Videos with Ciampi Present?

Donald Larkin

Palo Alto City Attorney

Mr. Larkin,

Please provide some available dates to re-show the media the videos with me present so that I can defend myself against your manipulated presentation of the falsified videos and evidence.

We will start off with making another copy of Temores’ MAV video so that the PAPD can demonstrate how they need to remove the embedded watermark in order to make copies for the Court.

There is one condition, should I prove to those in attendance that any part of the evidence has been tampered with, you will personally file a report with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office in order to bring forth criminal charges against the culpuble Palo Alto police officers for violating the various offenses including but not limited to:   PC 118, 181, 132, 134, and 141b.

You could also ask DA Jeff Rosen to send a representative to be present as well.

Tony Ciampi


Subject: RE: Palo Alto City Attorney Don Larkin To Hold Another Showing of the Videos with Ciampi Present?
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:34:35 -0800
From: Donald.Larkin@CityofPaloAlto.org
To: t.ciampi@hotmail.com

Mr. Ciampi,

As was reported, I showed several reporters the videos prepared by the Santa Clara County Crime Lab.  At this point, I do not intend to show them again.  You are (of course) free to show the videos yourself.

With regard to your request that I file a report with the District Attorney, at this point there is no evidence to show that the videos have been altered in any way.  All of the evidence points to the fact that the videos are true and correct depictions of the events.  However, if it was proven to me that the videos were intentionally altered, I would support criminal charges against the person who altered the videos.

Donald Larkin

Interim City Attorney

City of Palo Alto

(650) 329-2171

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or attorney-client privileged material. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

from Tony Ciampi <t.ciampi@hotmail.com>
to donald.larkin@cityofpaloalto.org,
cc loretta.king@usdoj.gov,
date Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:38 PM
subject Mr. Larkin refuses to show the videos with Ciampi present
mailed-by hotmail.com
Jan 20 (2 days ago)

Donald Larkin

Palo Alto City Attorney

Mr. Larkin,

Please explain to the media why the PAPD needs to remove the embedded watermark on the MAV videos as directed by the Chief of Police and authorized by your office.

You already know that the officers violated the law as I have provided it to you in Court Documents 55 and 109.

Exhibit 45 from Court Document 55 of Case # C09-02655 proves that Office Kelly Burger committed perjury during my Pre-Trial Examination by stating that he placed his taser gun back in his holster when his own taser video contradicts his statement.  Burger viewed the video four days prior to giving his testimony.

Exhibit 46 from Court Document 55 of Case # C09-02655 proves that Manuel Temores, Natasha Powers and others either themselves or knowingly commissioned others to remove 4 to 5 seconds of video footage from Temores’ taser video which is a violation of PC 132, 134 and 182.

Exhibits 46 and 47 from Court Document 55 of Case # C09-02655 and Exhibits 162, 163, 166, 167, from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 verify the Officers Manuel Temores fired his taser gun and that Manuel Temores, Kelly Burger and Natasha Powers removed Temores’ taser cartridge, probes, wires, blast doors and AFIDS from the crime scene and destroyed them in violation of PC 141b and 182.  Additionally, the video footage of Temores firing his taser gun has been removed from both his taser video and MAV video, another violation of PC 132 and 134 by Temores, Powers and others and or by whom they commissioned to remove the video footage.

Exhibit 172 from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 proves that April Wagner violated 118 by making false statements in the police report contradicted by Temores’ MAV and Taser videos.

Exhibit 172 from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 proves that Manuel Temores committed perjury during the Pre-Trial Examination.

Exhibits 164, 165, 169 and 170 from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 prove that video footage is missing and has been edited from Manuel Temores MAV video verifying that Manuel Temores, Powers and others and or by whom Temores and Powers commissioned to remove the video footage violated PC 132 and 134.

Exhibit 171 from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 proves that Kelly Burger’s taser guns data port has been tampered with, for his taser gun is seen discharging electricity several seconds after the data port documents that the discharge stopped.  Burger, Powers and others who helped them achieve this falsification of the evidence violated PC 132, 134 and 141(b).

Exhibits 178 and 179 from Court Document 109 of Case # C09-02655 proves that Chief Burns knowingly submitted falsified activation data from Burger’s and Temores’ Taser guns.

Exhibit 48 from Court Document 55 of Case # C09-02655 proves that the dialog recorded in Kelly Burger’s MAV has been edited and altered verifying the Burger, Powers and others and or whom they commissioned to edit the MAV recording violated PC 132 and 134.

I could keep going.

You yourself violated Palo Alto Use of Force Policy 308.9.9 by refusing to provide the taser guns’ activation data with the original police report.

You are knowingly concealing the crimes of Palo Alto Police Officers a violation of PC 32.  You probably actively engaged in the conspiracy to falsify and destroy all of the evidence in order to put me in prison by using a falsified video.

Tony Ciampi

32.  Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony.

PC 118.  (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

123.  It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury that the accused did not know the materiality of the false statement made by him; or that it did not, in fact, affect the proceeding in or for which it was made. It is sufficient that it was material, and might have been used to affect such proceeding.

PC 132.  Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law, offers in evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or other instrument in writing, knowing the same to have been forged or fraudulently altered or ante-dated, is guilty of felony.

PC 134.  Every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony.

PC 141.   (b) Any peace officer who knowingly, willfully, and intentionally alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, with specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.

PC 118.1.  Every peace officer who files any report with the agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years. This section shall not apply to the contents of any statement which the peace officer attributes in the report to any other person.

PC182.  (a) If two or more persons conspire:    (1) To commit any crime.  (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.  (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.