Victim(s) Maria Auxiliadora Moncada Flores, y Melissa Caceres Auxiliadora Moncada de Masatepe Nicaragua statement to the Palo Alto Police.
“El sospechoso violación a la víctima sobre una base diaria. El sospechoso ordenaría a tener relaciones sexuales. Si se negaba El sospechoso podría arrancarle la ropa y tener relaciones sexuales por la fuerza. La víctima sufrió una infección vaginal debido a violaciones repetidas y consiguió ayuda médica. El sospechoso amenaza con deportar a la víctima cada vez que ella se resiste “.
Dishonest Police and District Attorney’s
This is the stuff the Innocence Project should be all about. Getting at the truth before the conviction and providing support to those who find themselves faced with life in prison based on false police reports or coerced confessions perpetrated by Dishonest Police and District Attorney’s.
Heart wrenching stories of those found innocent and released from years of imprisonment can be found at the Innocence Project website.
The vast majority of those released from prison are the direct result of newly discovered DNA evidence pointing to an altogether different person or from coerced police confessions and evidence often times hidden from the defense by unscrupulous District Attorney’s for political gain.
One such cold case where the Palo Alto Police Department and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office sits center stage, is their attempt to build and fabricate a rape charge with evidence they themselves invented and or coerced from their victims and whom they allowed to flee the country.
Massive vaginal infection
The alleged crime is detailed in an emergency protective order outlining repeated rape having caused a massive vaginal infection described by Chief Sex Detective April Chan-Wagner. April Chan-Wagner was lead investigator.
Later discovered through an intercepted medical report from the victims own doctor, was evidence the vaginal disease was not the result of any sexual assault, but rather a yeast infection. Exculpatory evidence April Chan-Wagner and the DA’s office have continued to ignore.
Had a sexual assault occurred, the medical profession is under clear legal responsibility to report any such crimes. The Chan-Wagner report indicates the victim sought medical assistance to bolster her claims to the DA of repeated rape and was used to justify a phone wiretap of the editors’ apartment.
Although, charges never resulted in the arrest of the editor of the Palo Alto Free Press, charges still stand and will not be prosecuted “at this time” as detailed in an email received by Chief Prosecutor Daniel Okonkwo in charge of this case. In other words, their opened ended.
No interest in solving crime
Disturbing, is the fact that District Attorney Jeff Rosen has absolutely no interest in solving this alleged crime, a crime with the potential of sending away the suspect for life in prison.
We suspect the District Attorney is protecting the police in not disclosing the actual police reports and tactics used which may have included illegal coercion.
We beleive, coercion to be an unethical tactic often used by police as in the now City of Palo Alto Police infamous David E. Carlson and Jorge Hernandez cases, an all to common occurrence according to the Innocence Project in which the DA’s office and the Palo Alto Police Department would like us all to forget.
Take a look at something you’ve never seen before (unless you work in the city’s Bureau of Human Resources): data (pdf) showing all 194 grievances filed by the Portland Police Association since mid-2002—including names of officers who tried to fight off bureau-imposed discipline—and how those grievances were resolved and when.
The records, obtained this week through a public records request, reveal some surprises (we’ll have more context in the coming week’s paper). The biggest is that the union doesn’t always prevail outright when it takes on the city. The union has either withdrawn a grievance or cut some kind of a deal with the city 127 times, almost two-thirds of all cases.
And while discipline makes up the largest single category of grievances filed and pursued by the union, those cases account for just about a third of grievances overall, 67. The union actually spends much more of its time fighting over pocketbook issues like overtime, leaves, health insurance, and compensation issues.
Although, as Portland Copwatch’s Dan Handelman points out, that unwillingness to tilt doesn’t extend to “any of the ones who have committed acts of excessive force” on duty.
Some other points of interest:
• Of 48 discipline cases that did make it to arbitration—an expensive, lengthy process—the union settled with the city 29 times (meaning neither side prevailed) and bailed on a grievance five other times. Only four discipline cases have reached an arbitrator, with the case of Ron Frashour, the fired cop who killed Aaron Campbell in the back, being the most recent. (Frashour’s case, because the city is still challenging an arbitrator’s ruling to reinstate him, is listed as “open.”)
Overall, 103 cases—just about half, including several that remain “open”—have been sent to arbitration. What’s not captured in the database are all the discipline decisions issued every year that don’t spur grievances from the union. The police bureau hasn’t returned a message seeking comment on that question.
• But what about when cops are fired? Of at least 11 dismissals in the city database (including Westerman’s, even though the records don’t label it as such), the union either didn’t object to or stopped fighting eight. The PPA settled with the city over former officer Christina Nelson, fired for lying about a medical trip to Mexico, winning her back pay in exchange for her promise to then resign. Frashour, of course, was ordered reinstated by an arbitrator. And Edgar Mitchell, fired over a drunk driving accident, was also given his job back by an arbitrator. When the union didn’t intervene, the cases included on-duty sex, off-duty domestic violence, and dishonesty.
• The number of grievances filed year by year has remained relatively stable. That’s somewhat contrary to a statement I reported from Yvonne Deckard, director of the Bureau of Human Resources, who said the PPA’s current president, Daryl Turner, was the most litigious in memory. The highest number of grievances (32, in 2009) came under Westerman’s time atop the PPA. The PPA would need to file 24 more the rest of this year to top that—and, according to the database, the last time the PPA had that many over a 12-month span was in 2003.
This year has seen just once discipline case grieved so far, with most years seeing just a handful. The discipline in the Campbell case skewed 2010’s number a bit high, nine. In 2002, there were 16 discipline-related grievances—mostly because the union decided to fight a slew of suspensions and reprimands related to the “sexist and puerile” antics of the city’s scandal-plagued tactical team. Details about those complaints didn’t emerge until after the Campbell shooting, because the case involved one of the officers suspended over Campbell’s death, Sergeant Liani Reyna.
• Eleven discipline cases remain listed as “open,” with the oldest being a March 2010 grievance filed on behalf of Chris Humphreys, which could be related to his suspension over his 2009 beanbagging of a 12-year-old girl. It also could be related to a suspension announced years after the beating death of James Chasse Jr.
In one weird twist, a grievance involving Reyna, suspended for 80 hours for her role in the Campbell shooting, is listed as “closed” and “settled.” That’s strange, because an arbitrator is scheduled to hear Reyna’s grievance, alongside two other Campbell cops: Ryan Lewton and John Birkinbine. Both Lewton and Birkinbine’s cases are listed as open.
• The PPA also is still grieving pension issues, the city’s now-nearly-year-old 911 dispatch system, paycheck deductions made by the city’s payroll program, drug testing provisions in the latest contract, and fitness testing in the latest contract.
Posted by Denis C. Theriault on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Officer Daniel (Dan) Ryan aka “Father” Ryan is no stranger to those who know him. He served as media spokesperson for the PAPD during the final tumultuous days of former Police chief Lynne Johnson who resigned in disgrace for ordering her officers including Dan Ryan to stop and question all African Americans wearing a “Doo Rag” prompted by a string of robberies having occurred in Palo Alto back in 2008.
“When my officers see an African American who has a doo-rag on his head, absolutely the officers will be stopping and trying to find out who that person is,” Johnson had told reporters ……
In one of his most provocative and chilling media statements, Ryan fully supported former police Chief Johnson’s actions in stopping African Americans by suggesting that news media had reported the original story incorrectly.
It’s alleged that former police Chief Lynne Johnson instructed Ryan, to release the following media statement to CBS 5 crime watch:
“Police spokesman Dan Ryan defended the chief’s statements Friday, saying they were taken out of context and were truncated to appear in the worst possible light”.
Ryan’s controversial media statement prompted one Palo Alto city council member Pat Burt to see through Ryan’s media spin by questioning his own tone on illegal racial profiling to the press.
“He [Ryan] is still making statements that it’s largely the fault of the listener and the press,” Burt told the Post yesterday. “I requested that … we don’t have the community representative in the department making statements that essentially contradict the city manager and the police chief and contradict the record”.
Ryan is also well known for his supportive role in other officer’s questionable behavior as in the tazing of long time resident Tony Ciampi ruled unconstitutional calling it a ‘training exercise’. We beleive the community should be aware of Ryan’s return to the streets of Palo Alto and his perceived bias of African American’s and Latino’s.
It was Deja Vu all over again just like the proposed city ordnance to ban overnight parking within the city limits of Palo Alto impacting the disenfranchised.
The police, namely Lt. April Wagner aka Chan/Wagner in full uniform with her loaded sidearm clearly stood ready to enforce whatever draconian ordinance is decided upon.
I personally know Ms. April Wagner and she is a text book example of a detective known to be aggressive and deceptive. In my opinion she’s a bad cop.
How quickly we have forgotten that Lt. April Wagner was found by a court of law to have violated the constitutional rights of longtime resident Tony Ciampi and it is alleged she fabricated police reports and evidence.
This in itself, should give rise and alarm us all to the potentiality of Lt. April Wagner and her enforcement team falsifying evidence collected during massage business raids.
In the Ciampi case, the city of Palo Alto paid out a 35 thousand dollar settlement for her mistakes and those of her colleagues.
What I also found alarming and disturbing among other things in her report to city council, was that she made it a point of having readily available and accessible massage therapy client lists, for unannounced police raids for any potential violations.
Here’s how a portion of the newly created ordinance reads….
4.54.120 Inspection by official
“Any and all investigating officials of the city shall have the right to enter massage establishments from to time during regular business hours to make reasonable inspection to observe and enforce compliance with building, fire, electrical, plumbing or health regulations. A warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law.”
[absent of exigent circumstances]
It was also evident from last night’s discussion that Wagner was ill prepared and unable to produce any real hard data or for that matter, unable to address any issues or complaints (sexual assaults or activities) evolving massage therapy businesses or otherwise within Palo Alto or in attracting the criminal clientele. This data was non-existent prompting several council members to wonder and suggest if we even have a problem at all.
What’s the big deal? Why do anything as councilman Larry Klien mentioned. One thing is for sure there’s an obvious divide between reflexology, massage therapy and a simple foot rub. The reflexology professionals are asking for an exemption to the city’s proposed ordinance along with the foot massage therapists.
But wait, what about the foot massage business. Why should they be forced to comply and compete right alongside the massage therapists and reflexologist professionals with expensive training and licensing as mandated by the State of California?
Again, why is the police and the city’s attorney’s office pushing for state compliance and why are the police involving itself in the administration of an occupation some claim is equal to doctors and lawyers.
Essentially, Wagner’s response was, she worries about Happy Feet causing injury by putting a client in a strangling toe hold. This whole process seems absurd in my opinion.
If there are complaints with the level of service or for that matter health issues, get the health department involved and not the police in all non-criminal activitiesor behavior. It just seems like the police and our lawmakers are attempting to criminalize the entire massage therapy profession by placing a strangle hold on legitimate businesses.
If you have been following the ongoing series on the corruption within the Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office, www.larkinbarcomplaint.weebly.com you will want to read how Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor Michael Gennaco has allegedly conspired with Mr. Larkin and the Palo Alto Police in attempting to incriminate Tony Ciampi by using falsified videos and taser gun activation data at www.gennacobarcomplaint.weebly.com which contains all of the direct evidence and exhibits verifying the allegations alleged.
Below is the text of the complaint filed with the California State Bar:
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
The State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
My name is Joseph (Tony) Ciampi. I bring this complaint against Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor, Attorney Michael Gennaco, Bar Number # 112969, as a result of his actions which occurred over the course of the last three and half years in which Mr. Gennaco knowingly concealed the crimes committed by the Palo Alto Police and Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office, Don Larkin. Additionally, Mr. Gennaco actually submitted a flawed and fraudulent report, Pgs. 5-6 of Exhibit 3, pgs 2-3 of report, to the Palo Alto City Council in order to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and therefore by way of his actions actually conspired with the Palo Alto Police and attorney Don Larkin to incriminate me of a crime by knowingly using falsified evidence, audio/video recordings and taser gun activation data, to do so.
Mr. Gennaco was first informed that Temores’ MAV video had been edited on May 13, 2008 approximately two weeks after I had first viewed the video. See Exhibit 1. At this time I had not viewed Burger’s MAV video or the Taser videos because they had not been provided. Thus my complaint was about Temores’ MAV video not the Taser Videos. In Mr. Gennao’s official report, Pgs. 5-6 of Exhibit 3, Mr. Gennaco conspicuously leaves out my complaint abut the Temores’ MAV video being edited and falsified.
I first learned of the watermark on the MAV videos approximately March of 2009. I emailed Mr. Gennaco on April 19, 2009 and asked him why he, like the Santa Clara District Attorney and Crime Lab, had not analyzed the watermark. Mr. Gennaco responded on April 27, 2009 by stating that he could not provide much detail regarding his review of the incident, yet Mr. Gennaco had already completed his thorough analysis using independent experts and submitted it to the City of Palo Alto on April 13, 2009. Mr. Gennaco intentionally lied to me. See Pg. 2 of Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. It should be noted that the Mr. Gennaco’s report was submitted to Palo Alto City Manager James Keene on or before April 13, 2009 and that the Mr. Keene apparently lost the report on his desk for six months, See Exhibit 37 and [6. Acceptance of Transmittal of Police Auditor’s Final Report for 2008 ]
On August 5, 2008 I informed Mr. Gennaco that the Palo Alto Police had violated Palo Alto Use of Force Policy 308.96 by not providing the Taser Guns Activation reports with the original police report. Mr. Gennaco refused to investigate at that time, but would look into it after current proceeding had been resolved. See Pgs. 3-4 of Exhibit 2. Mr. Gennaco never addressed the blatant violation and left it out of his official report. Mr. Gennaco made a false statement and never revealed the violation committed by the Palo Alto Police.
In Mr. Gennaco’s official report regarding my incident, he states the Taser had no effect on me. That is a bold face lie. Officer Burger shocked me for a minimum of 20 seconds and probably closer to 30 seconds during the incident. The video evidence clearly demonstrates that I was being shocked with electricity and Ofc. Burger himself admits that I was being shocked with electricity. In fact, Ofc. Burger himself admits to being shocked from his own taser wires, See lines 24-28 of Pg. 18 of Exhibit 38 and Video 9 of Exhibit 98 & Exhibit 99 of my complaint against Don Larkin, Inquiry Case No. 11-36148.
Mr. Gennaco’s assertion is contradicted by the evidence, See Exhibit s 9, 10 and 15 through 33.
In Mr. Gennaco’s March 7, 2010 report, he notes in another Taser incident that the Palo Alto Police had problems downloading the taser data and getting an accurate time stamp on it. It appears that the cover-ups continue, for the individual was subjected to two taser guns, a violation of Palo Alto Police Use of Force Policy, and went into seizures. See Pgs 8-10 of Exhibit 2 and Pgs. 4-5 of Exhibit 5.
Mr. Gennaco asserted in his official report regarding my incident that the videos comported with the account of the incident documented in the written reports. That is another false statement made by Mr. Gennaco, for Officer Wagner’s statement differs significantly from that in the videos and both Officers Temores and Burger make statements during the Pre-Trial Examination that contradicts the videos and taser gun activation data. In fact based upon Ofc. Wagner’s statement in the police report that I went down to the ground two separate times getting up off the ground in between and Ofc. Temores testifying under oath to the same, both Officers Wagner and Temores have essentially testified and verified that the video footage of me getting up off the ground has been removed from Temores’ MAV video. See Exhibits 12, 24, 25 & 26.
Wagner’s statements are contradicted by the photographs, Exhibit 33. Burger’s statements are contradicted by the videos, Exhibit 29. Temores’ statements are contradicted by the Taser gun activation data reports, Exhibits 25 through 26. Johnson’s and Burns’ statements are contradicted by the taser gun activation data and the videos, Exhibits 42-43.
Mr. Gennaco asserted in his official report that the “gaps” in the video tape of the taser videos was the result of the officers activating and deactivating the taser guns while switching modes. First, this act of switching modes would make it impossible for officers to comply with the Use of Force Policy 308.94 which states that the audio/video function shall be activated at all times that the taser is pulled from the holster, See Exhibits 39 and 40 and Pg. 5 of Exhibit 41. Furthermore, Temores’ own MAV video verifies that Burger’s Taser Camera should be recording audio/video footage when in fact it is not according to the PAPD, See Exhibits 6, 7 & 8.
Mr. Gennaco obtained a contract from the City of Palo Alto to conduct investigations of the Palo Alto Police regarding their use of taser guns. A contract in which an outside auditing mechanism, Mr. Gennaco, would ensure that Palo Alto Police Officers would be held accountable should they unlawfully abuse citizens with taser guns, Exhibits 34, 35 & 36. By covering up Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger’s torture of me by using electricity from his taser gun, Mr. Gennaco misrepresented to the people and the City of Palo Alto his true intentions and actions should he ever be confronted with holding officers accountable for the unlawful use of taser guns.
Mr. Gennaco’s analysis is contradicted by Temores’ and Burger’s MAV videos, the Taser videos, the Taser gun Activation data which has been falsified, (Exhibit 14) and the Palo Alto Use of Force Policy. Mr. Gennaco has submitted a fraudulent report to the City of Palo Alto in order to conceal the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and to wrongfully incriminate me of a crime by using falsified video and other evidence.. See Exhibits 15 through 33 and 44. Additionally I cite all of the evidence and exhibits submitted in Inquiry Case No. 11-36148, complaint against Palo Alto Assistant City Attorney Don Larkin.
I believe it completely improbable that the Palo Alto Police were capable of editing and tampering with the Data Ports inside the taser guns prior to Mr. Gennaco analyzing the evidence during the months of March, April and May. Given that three separate Santa Clara County Crime Lab Analysts failed to document the activation data in their official reports corroborates this assertion. As such I believe that Mr. Gennaco viewed and or knew that the activation data retained on the Data Ports completely contradicted the edited videos. Thus, there was and is no way that Mr. Gennaco does not know that the videos have been falsified.
To this day, Mr. Gennaco refuses to address my complaint, my allegations and my evidence. Even if the Palo Alto Police initially duped Mr. Gennaco early on, there is no possibility that Mr. Gennaco is not currently aware of the tampering and falsification of the videos and taser guna activation data given all of the evidence I have provided to him and the City of Palo Alto. So the question is, why does Mr. Gennaco continue to conceal the tampering, suppression, destruction, editing and falsification of the evidence? The answer is Mr. Gennaco has conspired with the Palo Alto Police to incriminate me of a crime by using falsified evidence verified by his submission of a fraudulent report to the City Council of Palo Alto.
Mr. Gennaco has violated State Bar Rule 3-110 by failing to perform legal services for the public in his capacity as an Independent Police Auditor. Mr. Gennaco is paid by the citizens of Palo Alto whom he failed.
By submitting his official report, Exhibit 3, to the Palo Alto City Council and thereby making it a public document, Mr. Gennaco violated State Bar Rule 5-120 especially when he knowingly prepared the report in a false and fraudulent manner in order to conceal the Palo Alto Police Department’s crimes which is a violation of State Bar Rule 5-200(A).
In preparing his false report and then submitting it to the City of Palo Alto, Mr. Gennaco violated Penal Codes 132 and 134. Mr. Gennaco’s motive for preparing and submitting his false report was to cover up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and Palo Alto Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin, a violation of Penal Code 32. Additionally, the evidence points to that Mr Gennaco had and has the motive to aid the Palo Alto Police Department’s and Asst. City Attorney Don Larkin’s intent to falsely incriminate me of a crime by using falsified evidence, thus, Mr. Gennaco violated Penal Code 182(a)(1)(2)(3)(5). As a result of these actions and omissions, Mr. Gennaco has violated Business and Professions Code 6068(a), 6106 and 6128(a) and therefore should be suspended from practicing law at the very least or more appropriately receive permanent disbarment for his despicable actions that are completely contrary to everything that the American Justice system is supposed to stand for.
These were the names of the PAPD officers which were released by the city of Oakland through the California Public Records Request Act and through the efforts Shankar Ramamoorthy a concerned citizen and truth seeker.
Both Palo Alto Free Press and retired former Santa Clara County Public Defender Aram James made numerous requests for this very same information.
All of which were denied by both Palo Alto city attorneys Molly Stump and Donald Larkin.
Were completely dismayed at the total and complete lack of transparency and open government emanating out of the city’s attorney’s office and it would appear Molly Stump and Donald Larkin are “playing by their own set of rules” as stated by Aram James in the city’s compliance with the California Public Records Request Act.
Furthermore, this is clearly a case between The City of Palo Alto vs. The City of Oakland in terms of compliance.
We believe both attorney’s Molly Stump and Donald Larkin owe it to the citizens of Palo Alto to answer why they refused to comply with our initial request.
Both city’s have a complete legal understanding of the laws and yet only the city of Oakland recognized the scope of our joint request and put forth an honest answer rather than deceit.
In light of the following case sited below, it’s extremely important to note here, the need for maintaining public trust and in keeping all of us “fully informed of the activities of its peace officers.”
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Thomas) 1997, 52 Cal. App. 4th 97.
“[3c] We conclude that the public interest here outweighs the right of the deputies to have their names withheld. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 1586 [public disclosure of names of excessive users of water allowed]; see also City of Richmond v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435; see also 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 103 (1995).)
Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its [52 Cal.App.4th 105] peace officers.”
As noted above and in light of the foregoing, we further believe the city of Palo Alto and its chief attorney’s Molly Stump and Donald decisively set out to undermine this trust and should be held accountable for their actions.