Public Servants Not:
Ofc. Conde is promoted as a “public servant.” A servant is someone who does the biding of others. Ofc. Conde, like all police officers, is an employee of the People. During the November 16, 2018 hearing to suppress evidence that was to decide whether Ofc. Conde’s detention of Alvarez was Constitutional or not Ofc. Conde refused to answer a question submitted to him by members of the public, The People, regarding the main subject of the hearing, that being whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle or not. Ofc. Conde had stated in writing in his police report under penalty of perjury that he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle and now in court on the witness stand Ofc. Conde refused to answer the question as to whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle.
Forget the court and the laws, Ofc. Conde was deliberately disobeying his employer by not providing information to his employer that his employer was entitled to have; the subject of that information being the performance of his duties of what he was doing on the job while working for his employer, the People. Ofc.Conde is paid to give testimony in court by the People yet refused to provide testimony demanded by the People about work he had previously done for the People.
In any other business Ofc. Conde would be summarily terminated from his emplacement. Only a public servant, a police officer, can get away with refusing to fulfill his job description thumbing his nose at his employer and not only remain on the job but without any disciple as well.
Ofc. Conde is promoted as a “public servant.” A servant is someone who does the biding of others. Ofc. Conde, like all police officers, is an employee of the People. During the November 16, 2018 hearing to suppress evidence that was to decide whether Ofc. Conde’s detention of Alvarez was Constitutional or not Ofc. Conde refused to answer a question submitted to him by members of the public, The People, regarding the main subject of the hearing, that being whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle or not. Ofc. Conde had stated in writing in his police report under penalty of perjury that he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle and now in court on the witness stand Ofc. Conde refused to answer the question as to whether he saw Alvarez driving the vehicle.
Forget the court and the laws, Ofc. Conde was deliberately disobeying his employer by not providing information to his employer that his employer was entitled to have; the subject of that information being the performance of his duties of what he was doing on the job while working for his employer, the People. Ofc.Conde is paid to give testimony in court by the People yet refused to provide testimony demanded by the People about work he had previously done for the People.
In any other business Ofc. Conde would be summarily terminated from his emplacement. Only a public servant, a police officer, can get away with refusing to fulfill his job description thumbing his nose at his employer and not only remain on the job but without any disciple as well.
Fact 1: Officer Conde is seen and heard in a video at the incident verbally acknowledging that he did not see the suspect driving the vehicle.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions-surround-Palo-Alto-police-officers-use-of-force-513069571.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions-surround-Palo-Alto-police-officers-use-of-force-513069571.html
Fact 2: At a later time officer Conde falsely states under penalty of perjury in the police report that he viewed the suspect driving the vehicle. PC 118.1 and PC 118
Fact 3: Officer Conde submitted the written report to the District Attorney's office with the intent to have criminal charges filed against the suspect containing the false statement which is the pivotal basis to bring charges against the suspect. PC 134
Fact 3: Officer Conde submitted the written report to the District Attorney's office with the intent to have criminal charges filed against the suspect containing the false statement which is the pivotal basis to bring charges against the suspect. PC 134
Fact 4: During a court hearing officer Conde refused to answer the question as to whether he had seen the suspect driving the vehicle corroborating the PC 118.1 & PC 118 violations.
Palo Alto Police Officers Fino and Joy falsely stated to a citizen that the citizen was looking into vehicles in order to justify detain, search and seize the citizen in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Click here for information and evidence:
http://libertyless.weebly.com/
and
http://libertyless.weebly.com/transcript-of-violation.html
Click here for information and evidence:
http://libertyless.weebly.com/
and
http://libertyless.weebly.com/transcript-of-violation.html
Palo Alto City Manager James Keene, (on the left), hires Robert Jonsen, (on the right),
as Palo Alto's Police Chief -- November 11, 2017/March 30, 2018
as Palo Alto's Police Chief -- November 11, 2017/March 30, 2018
Palo Alto City Manager James Keene hires and fires the Police Chief who serves at Mr. Keene's, the City Manager's, pleasure. This now extends to incoming City Manager Ed Shikada.
Mr. Keene is ultimately responsible for doing the back ground check on the police chief. Chief Jonsen's background is filled with violation the civil rights of minorities, the poor and the powerless, which obviously includes undocumented immigrants. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4079 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/30/robert-jonsen-sworn-in-as-palo-alto-police-chief |
Ed Shikada
new City Manager |
City Manager James Keene's Back Ground Check includes Robert Jonsen's time as the Police Chief of the Lancaster Sheriff Station from 2011 to 2013 and worked as a superior out of both the Lancaster and Palmdale stations from 2005 to 2013 during the time that the DOJ determined that these officers from these station systematically violated the U.S. Constitution by violating the Constitutional rights of minorities on a regular basis.
Both current City Manager James Keene and incoming City Manager Ed Shikada, the current Assistant City Manager, did a thorough back ground Robert Jonsen and therefore would have been aware of Jonsen's implementation and use of discriminatory and anti-Constitutional tactics as a high ranking police official. Thus, James Keene and Ed Shikada condone the use of discriminatory and anti-Constitutional tactics by the officers under their command. This has borne out to be true.
|
During the time that Robert Jonsen was the Chief of the Lancaster Station the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division found that Jonsen's officers violated the United States Constitution on a regular basis and specifically against minorities.
Read Full Report Here:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6-28-13.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6-28-13.pdf
This lawsuit brought by the DOJ resulted in a $725,000 Settlement
In addition to the monetary damages the Lancaster and Palmdale stations were required to reform their police procedures:
After Palo Alto Police Chief Rober Jonsen left the Los Angeles Sheriff Department he took the helm of the Menlo Park Police as the MPPD's Police Chief. During his short tour there the residents complained about racially discriminatory actions conducted by the Menlo Park Police while under the supervision of Jonsen.
To RECAP: Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonsen was directly connected to racial discrimination and violating the U.S. Constitution during his time in the Los Angeles Sheriff department and then accused of supporting racial discrimination and violating the Constitution by his subordinate officers in Menlo Park. Now he is the Police Chief of Palo Alto and shortlist after taking his position one of his officers gets caught violating the Constitution and Chief Jonsen does nothing to hold the officer accountable or put a stop to it. This shouldn't be a surprise given that Jonsen's mentor was former Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca who was found guilty of Obstructing a federal investigation into the abuses going on in Baca's jails and then attempting to cover up the obstruction in addition to lying to federal investigators. Sheriff Baca did not act alone but many of his subordinates conspired, (LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSPIRACY), with Sheriff Baca to violate the laws and Constitution by abusing inmates of their jails.
The verdict brings an end to a corruption scandal that has dogged the largest sheriff’s department in the country and reached the highest levels of the department. Ten other officers, ranging from rank-and-file deputies to Mr. Baca’s second in command, have been convicted or pleaded guilty to interfering in the federal investigation into the jail system. More deputies have been found guilty of routinely sexually humiliating inmates and severely beating them at the jails, according to the Justice Department....The verdict, which the jury reached after less than two days of deliberations, came in the second trial against Mr. Baca, who resigned in 2014 amid the investigation into the corruption charges. Federal prosecutors argued that Mr. Baca directed a conspiracy in 2011 to stop the F.B.I. from investigating allegations of abuse and corruption in the county’s jails, including trying to keep federal agents away from an inmate who was working for them as an informant, intimidating the agent leading the investigation and manipulating potential witnesses.
Full Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/former-los-angeles-sheriff-found-guilty-of-obstructing-federal-investigation.html?module=inline |
Prosecutors said Mr. Baca put his undersheriff, Paul Tanaka, in charge of the scheme.
Mr. Tanaka, who also resigned from the department before mounting an unsuccessful campaign to replace Mr. Baca as sheriff, was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy last year and sentenced to five years in prison. Full Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/lee-baca-los-angeles-county-sheriff-sentenced-prison.html |
In the midst of the largest corruption scandals in law enforcement history Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonsen was at the side of his mentor Mr. Baca receiving accolades from him which infers to the public that Jonsen condones the illegal and anti-Constitutional acts committed by Sheriff Baca and Baca's subordinates, Jonsen's, colleagues int the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.
Another connection to Sheriff Lee Baca is Michael Gennaco the Independent Police Auditor for the Palo Alto Police whose firm, the OIRGroup, was the Independent Police Auditor for the Los Angeles Sheriff Department during the scandalous times of corruption. Michael Gennaco defended the former Sheriff Lee Baca to the end. Due to his negligence and outright cover up Gennaco's contract with the LASD was terminated by the Board of Supervisors. Gennaco and his firm continues to work for the Palo Alto Police.
You can read about all of Michael Gennaco's white washing shenanigans for the Palo Alto Police here:
https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/
You can read about all of Michael Gennaco's white washing shenanigans for the Palo Alto Police here:
https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/
Walter Katz an attorney working for Miahael Gennaco’s OIRGroup meeting members of the public and officials from the Lancastar Sheriff Station including Robert Jonsen in 2011.
Synopsis: Dan Ryan is just doing his job holding a local establishment accountable for violations of ABC rules and local laws. His superiors cover up the violations of the local establishment and leak personal information about Ryan to the public that was malicious, false and therefore defamatory in order to minimize and trivialize the allegations Ryan made about the business and to vilify Ryan to the community.
|
Full Story
ryan_45000_gossip.pdf | |
File Size: | 1755 kb |
File Type: |