Report Judicial Corruption and Civil Rights Abuses withing the Santa Clara County, California Probate Court and Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s Office. Call: 408-475-0412 or email

Posted in California, California Corruption., elder fraud, Palo Alto, Palo Alto California, probate court, public guardian, Santa Clara County, Uncategorized on October 29, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

New HOTLINE for reporting Judicial Corruption and Civil Rights Abuses withing the Santa Clara County, California Probate Court and Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s Office. Call: 408-475-0412. Acquired testimonies will  be distributed to several Federal Agencies and Organizations. You may also email:



Listen to testimony of Mr. Mark Riordon regarding corruption in Santa Clara County Probate Court:



We have met the enemy and he is us

Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

America’s Plague of Bad Cops

Posted in California, California Corruption., POLICE CORRUPTION, Santa Clara County on July 14, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

Citizens are having trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad. Retired LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman spouts venomous racism and brags to an aspiring screenwriter about torturing, beating and framing suspects. Cops across the country murder people, pull armed robberies while in uniform,

San Jose Police Officer: Tom Tortorici.(Badge# 2635)

Tom Tortorici of the San Jose Police Department .

sell dope, steal drug-buy money, shakedown criminals, accept bribes and falsify evidence against criminal defendants. The standard defense coming from law enforcement is that only a relative handful of the 400,000 cops nationwide go bad. For several reasons, the public is not reassured.

First, the number of reported cases of bad cops is rising. Some L.A. County deputy sheriffs get caught robbing and extorting money from drug dealers. In New Orleans, a uniformed cop is accused of murdering her partner and shop owners during a robbery committed while she was on patrol. In Washington, D.C., and in Atlanta, cops in drug stings are arrested for stealing and taking bribes. In Boston, two white cops frame a black man for murdering a white woman. New York State troopers falsify evidence that sends people to prison. In San Francisco, counterfeit evidence means hundreds of drug convictions are likely to be overturned. Similar evidence tampering forces the prosecution to reopen many cases in Philadelphia.

Detective Dennis Brookins of the scandal ridden District Attorney's office in Santa Clara County, California.

Detective Dennis Brookins of the scandal ridden District Attorney's office in Santa Clara County, California.

It’s not just the rank and file, either. The former police chief of Detroit is in prison for stealing drug-buy money. In a small New England town, the chief steals drugs from the evidence locker for his own use. A number of Southern sheriffs are convicted of being in league with drug smugglers.

Agencies thought to be untouchable are suddenly reaping as many bad headlines as the perennially troubled New York City Police Department. The Drug Enforcement agent who arrested Panama’s Gen. Manuel Noriega on drug-trafficking charges is in jail for stealing laundered drug money. The FBI catches one of its agents taking drugs from the evidence stockpile and trying to market them to regional drug dealers.

Of course, police corruption is not new. The heritage of cops in America includes corruption, racism and abuse of power for political purposes. The urban police forces started in the 1840s followed the orders of political machines like Tammany Hall. Aficionados of Raymond Chandler’s private eye, Philip Marlowe, will recall his good luck in encountering an occasional honest cop as he roamed Southern California in the 1930s. Ironically, it was the LAPD–whose recent problems have amplified police departments’ sins nationwide–under the leadership of William H. Parker, that first gained its freedom from politics to become a professional force.

police complaint department

police complaint department

One of the fundamental problems of American policing is the conflict between law-enforcement duties and maintaining order in the streets. For example, the Los Angeles Police Department is probably the most arrest-happy department in the country. By contrast, cops in other cities send drunks home, overlook minor violations and seek to keep the streets calm without resorting to arrest. Also, the LAPD, as well as other police forces, maintain control by aggressively policing minority communities. Resisters are taught a lesson and, if necessary, punished physically, especially if they show “contempt of cop.” Politicians and officials whose careers depend on tough-on-crime rhetoric are reluctant to ask too many questions about what the cops are doing.

Indeed, public fear of crime has made it increasingly difficult for the relatively small number of

police chiefs who really care to get civil-service commissions to uphold discipline in their ranks. And the few district attorneys willing to prosecute cops for unnecessary use of force find it difficult to get juries to convict officers, especially when the victim of a police beating is a minority. After all, in a “war,” you cannot tie your soldiers’ hands when the “enemy” is so dangerous.

True, American policing has greatly improved since the civil rights movement directed attention to police abuses. But the recent outbreak of bad-cop problems has cost police forces a lot of the credibility they had gained among minority groups with good policing. Still, there is one silver lining in the cloud of distrust created by the Fuhrman tapes and the plethora of police scandals: more self-scrutiny.


By Dr. Joseph D. McNamara (1995) | Joseph D. McNamara, the retired police chief of San Jose, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford University. He is writing a book on the crisis in American policing
See Also:

Problems in San Francisco Crime Lab could be very widespread

Posted in Uncategorized on June 26, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

Recent revelations of a compromised crime lab in San Francisco has brought scrutiny and criticism to the San Francisco Police Department and District Attorney’s office. Investigations by oversight agencies as well as the media have shown that the lab had mixed up DNA samples, concealed criticisms from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors, and had insufficient security – with doors to the facility being left open, leaving DNA potentially exposed to contamination, opening up challenges to the evidentiary chain of custody and a variety of other attacks on its scientific reliability.

But while all attention might be focused on the inadequacies of one crime lab, the problems found at the San Francisco lab should be prompting counties and cities across the country to examine their own crime labs, and challenge a more fundamental flaw in our system – the acceptance of prosecutors’ “science” as truth.

As a former public defender of 25 years, and having observed criminal cases across the country, I strongly suspect that crimes labs all over this state and country are equally as bad, if not worse, than the San Francisco Crime Lab, as depicted in the recent San Francisco Weekly’s cover story entitled “Missing Links.”

The exposé should be a call to action by the community at large impacted by the criminal justice system to become more aware about how the state/prosecution routinely attempts to get over on our communities with junk science — from phony gang experts, to pseudo drug experts, to drugs that haven’t been tested or adequately challenged by the defense, to bad DNA results.

What the public often does not see is the process leading up to the presentation of evidence before it hits the courtroom, and the surprising non-existent standards required. A rookie cop, just out of the police academy, instantly becomes the expert of choice, on the cheap, for the convenience of the District Attorney and courts on issues as wide-ranging as what constitutes possession for sale, to what constitutes usable quantity, to who is a gang member versus someone who simply wears the youth fashions of the day.

     It’s not just the prosecution and police that have gotten over on us. I put equal blame and responsibility for this mess of a criminal justice system on the often impotent, by choice, defense bar for frequently and systemically failing to take on this bad/junk/fraudulent science and/or for failing to call defense experts to rebut the steady stream of junk science put on by the prosecution in this county, state, and country.

We should never have our community members stipulate (agree to) to drug results and or any other forms of so-called scientific evidence. A community that cares in the proper defense of a defendant, and the attorneys that represent them, need to force the prosecution to prove every link in the chain of the evidence (including the reliability and integrity of their so-called infallible science), if they want to convict our clients.

Too often (in fact all most without exception), I have seen defense attorneys stipulate that the substance the police have seized from our clients’ person, cars, homes, etc., is the drug or contraband the police claim it is — without putting the prosecution and their labs through their hoops and forcing the state to prove — through good science — that the contraband is what they claim it is.

Part of the mentality I have observed — up close and personal in the courtroom as a pubic defender — is defense attorneys stipulating away their clients’ rights for their (the attorney’s) convenience. Or they simply do not want to be perceived as rocking the boat in the courtroom — all to the extreme detriment of the client and their families.

The public defender administrators who allow their line attorneys to commit this crime against our communities basic due process rights must be called to account.

You can be sure if it were the loved ones of these attorneys/administrators facing the same criminal injustice system there would be no stipulations to the state’s tests/evidence. And you can be sure that no expense would be spared to fight off the prosecution’s case/evidence and routine practice of overcharging our clients in hopes of extracting a forced plea bargain.

Our communities will accept nothing less than the same measure of due process and equal protection that the lawyers would demand if it were their life and liberty on the line.

Going forward, communities and advocates interested in bringing integrity to the criminal justice system must insist on touring our crime labs with our public servants/district attorneys so we can become conversant with the language of their legitimate scientific evidence. But we must be equally aware of where the system/crime labs have failed us, and as a result, imprisoned us unjustly. Knowledge is power, and now it is incumbent on us to obtain that knowledge.

As the court system collapses under its own weight, exacerbated by a lack of resources, we need to put the pressure on by forcing the prosecution to prove their cases, no matter how expensive and system draining the tests/labs and trials are to the state.

If the community demands the tests (and demands that our attorneys demand the tests), the experts, and all the other rights that our clients are rightfully entitled to, we will start to see that the system will grudgingly give our clients the justice they deserve. Not because the system wants to, but because once we know our rights, they literally can no longer afford to prosecute our clients for the charges and prison sentences we have for too long assumed and taken for granted that we could not challenge.

Now that the rabbit is out of the hat, it’s time we take back our criminal justice system.


Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County Public Defender, and co-founder of Silicon Valley De-Bug’s Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project.

Corruption within the Santa Clara County Department of Correction

Posted in Uncategorized on June 16, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1
Santa Clara County Main Jail facility in San Jose, California.

Santa Clara County Main Jail facility in San Jose, California.

See Also: Santa Clara County Department of Correction – Civil Rights Abuses.


Chief Edward Flores. Santa Clara County Department of Correction.

Chief Edward Flores. Santa Clara County Department of Correction

Corruption Within The Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s Office, APS, Probate Court and D.A. Elder Fraud Unit

Posted in California, California Corruption., elder fraud, Judicial Corruption, probate court, public guardian, Santa Clara County with tags , , , , on May 26, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

Report Corruption Within The Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s Office, Adult Protective Services, Probate Court and the Elder Fraud Unit at the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. Feedback will be passed along to the Federal Bureau of Investigations, The Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Inspector General of Health and Human Services, Council of Inspector Generals, the California Judicial Council and more….

Selected Corruption complaints that are coupled with Civil Rights Abuses will be reported to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and others.  If you wish to bring action against a Probate Court Judge in Santa Clara County, you are encouraged to utilize the tactics and resources presented at

Report Corruption within the Santa Clara County Public Guardian's Office, Probate court, D.A. Elder Fraud Unit and Adult Protective Services.

Report Corruption within the Santa Clara County Public Guardian's Office, Probate court, D.A. Elder Fraud Unit and Adult Protective Services.

Santa Clara County Probate Court Corruption

Santa Clara County Probate Court Corruption

Criminal Investigator: Dennis Brookins of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is believed to have intentionally sabotaged a criminal investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s office in May, 2008.

Criminal Investigator: Dennis Brookins of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is believed to have intentionally sabotaged a criminal investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian’s office in May, 2008.

This topic is published at and accessible at the following URL:

San Jose Police Officer: Tom Tortorici is believed to have abused a disabled woman in 2006 and to have assisted in the theft and destruction of evidence involving the crimes of Deputy: Rondi Opheim of the Santa Clara County Public Guardian's Office.

San Jose Police Officer: Tom Tortorici is believed to have abused a disabled woman in 2006 and to have assisted in the theft and destruction of evidence involving the alleged crimes of Deputy: Rondi Opheim of the Santa Clara County Public Guardian's Office.


Help fight police corruption in San Jose by getting Tortorici off of the streets. Please report any information you may have on officer: Tom Tortorici below or email:


ARTICLE:  How the California Criminal Justice System
Covers up crimes against the Elderly.

Murder of Jennifer Marie Schipsi Palo Alto California

Posted in California, California Corruption., Palo Alto, POLICE CORRUPTION, Santa Clara County on April 23, 2011 by sanjosecitizen1

Santa Clara County Superior Court Case: BB943863

This alternate version of this story was submitted by Friends and Family of defendant: Paul Zumot who Mrs. Zuzu and others believe was wrongfully  convicted in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court. (Case Number: BB943863)

On October 15 of 2009, Jennifer Marie Schipsi was murdered, and the cottage she and her boyfriend, Paul Zumot, used to live in was set on fire. A passerby saw the fire and called 911 at 6:39 pm that evening.

Paul was at his hookah shop smoking when the landlord called to inform him of the fire. Paul threw the phone and ran outside and drove his car to the cottage. The road was blocked, and he was stopped by the Palo Alto Police, who stopped him on his way to the cottage and prevented him from going there. Paul told them he was concerned about his girlfriend because he had been trying to reach her all day but she wasn’t answering. Paul called the landlord and the landlord told him her car was in the driveway.

Paul was very frustrated with the police and just wanted to go to the cottage and check on his girlfriend. Paul called Jennifer multitude of times, but her phone was turned off. He had left her 3 voicemails and sent a few text messages to check on her. Jennifer’s mother and her best friend Roy said they were trying to reach her too (Her phone record does not show calls from either of three. As per AT&T only calls that last over 30 seconds get registered on the phone bill).

The Palo Alto Police took Paul to the police station and questioned him in the interrogation room. They asked him if he knew anything about the fire. Paul stressed that he did not know how it started and that the last time he saw his girlfriend was around 12:45 pm of that day. He then left and never went back until he attempted to get to the house after that call from the landlord.

The Palo Alto Police asked the neighbors if they have seen or heard anything unusual that day, and no one said that he or she did. However, the neighbor who lives behind the cottage said that between 12:00 pm and 12:30 pm, and while the construction workers working in his backyard took a break for lunch, he heard a woman’s voice coming from the cottage. He said that the voice was raised, and sounded like the woman was talking to someone in another room. The neighbor said after realizing it was a woman’s voice and not the old neighbor’s teenage kid, he lost interest and did not try to listen who the woman was. He said that it did not sound like the woman was in distress, but rather talking to someone in a different room.

Paul was seen around 1:00 pm of that day at the Palo Alto Police  station, where he went to pick up paperwork he was called to pick up. Paul had alibi between for the whole afternoon into the evening hours when the landlord called him about the fire. The alibi consisted of surveillance cameras and cell phone towers.


The landlord and a guest in his house that day said that they passed by the cottage at 6:25pm and at 6:35pm and did not see anything amiss. None of them saw Paul, or Paul’s car or heard or saw anything. At 6:39 pm, a passerby saw the fire and called the Palo Alto Police. He then called the landlord and the guests, and they managed to distinguish the fire before the firemen arrived. The firemen described the fire as “hot and fast.” Gasoline was used to start it.

The cottage was 900 square feet, and only the bedroom was engulfed in fire. The fire was “hot and fast,” since gasoline was used to start it and was found in other areas of the cottage, and since the landlord and his guest did not see any fire from 6:25 pm to 6:35 pm, it was established that the fire started sometime between 6:36 and 6:39 pm.


After Paul arrived at the scene after 7pm, the Palo Alto Police took him to the police station and told him that they needed to ask him some questions. Since Paul did not hear from Jennifer since he left the cottage around 1 pm, and since the landlord told him that Jennifer’s car was parked in the driveway, Paul was starting to get very worried about Jennifer. He tried to call her several times, he called her mother and her best friend to ask if Jennifer was with them, and he called his workplace and asked his employees if Jennifer had stopped by. Jennifer used to go and help Paul at his business at night, so Paul told his employees to call them if Jennifer shows up to work. He called Jennifer at her workplace and could not find her either. Paul still had hope that perhaps Jennifer had gone for a walk that evening, as Jennifer also used to jog in the evenings.

Paul kept asking the detectives, who already knew then that Jennifer’s dead body was found in the house, about Jennifer. They kept telling him that they knew nothing about her whereabouts in order to get as much information from him as possible. Paul also kept asking them if he could go to the cottage to check on Jennifer, but the police prevented him from going anywhere near his place.
When the Palo Alto Police questioned Paul about his whereabouts on the day before the fire, he gave them an alibi from 1PM to 7 PM. The alibi was later verified by cell towers and on surveillance cameras. Paul was also very cooperative with the police and answered every question they asked him.

After about three hours of interrogation, Detective Sunseri broke the news about Jennifer’s death to Paul. Paul broke into tears immediately collapsed to the floor. He was sobbing and was inconsolable. He begged the Palo Alto Police to let him go and be with his family, but they told him he was not allowed to leave.

The detectives started searching Paul’s pockets, and Paul did not mind them doing that. They asked him if they could take his car keys and clothes, and Paul agreed, replying, “go ahead and take anything you want, just please let me go to the house and see Jennifer.” The detectives still rejected to let him go. Paul was not allowed to grieve the death of his girlfriend, but instead, the detectives continued to question him even as he was weeping and mourning the death of his girlfriend.

When Paul was finally able to reach Jennifer’s mother and when she told him she hasn’t heard from Jen all day Paul broke into tears. That is when the mother told him to bring her back accusing him of murdering her daughter without even knowing what had happened. The mother told the police to hold Paul and not let him go and the Palo Alto Police listened to her and turned a murder investigation into building a case around Paul. Little did the police know that Jennifer’s mother had mental illness and was in and out of a mental institute. At the time of her murder Jennifer made sure her mother did not know where she resided (according to Jen’s best friend Roy).

During the interrogation, Paul was more than cooperative with the police and signed consent to search his person, cars, business and anything they wanted. All what he was concerned about was Jennifer’s well being.

Jennifer Marie Schipsi

Jennifer Marie Schipsi

Theories of the DA.

1. Jennifer was killed immediately after the argument around 2 am on October 15 2009.

Gillingham suggested that Paul went home and the argument escalated and Paul killed Jennifer. And since the mother said that it was unlikely of Jennifer to turn her phone off, the DA believed that she was dead when the mother first called at 9 am.

2. Jennifer was killed at 4 am since they found the sex tape that showed Jen alive around 4 am.

3. Jennifer was killed around 11 am after she sent angry messages to Paul (when Paul had told them about the messages they did not believe him). When they retrieved the messages and found that they were angry messages Chuck decided that they were valid messages and not made by Paul like they suggested before, and decided to use them as the motive.

4. Jennifer was killed around 1 pm since the neighbor testified on the stand that he was sure he heard a woman’s voice between 12 pm and 12:30 pm.

However, Paul left the house around 12:45 and Jennifer started texting soon after.

The car

The landlord testified that around 1:15 while he drove out of the drive way and into the street he saw something strange. He said he saw a white car parked facing the cottage with a white male covering his face with a magazine. He testified that as he drove past the driveway, the white male inside the car moved the magazine to keep shielding his face from the landlord.

Lab results come back.

Since the accelerant dogs are only a tool that ATF does not recognize their findings without validation from the ATF labs, Paul’s clothing were sent to the lab where they came clear of accelerants

Jennifer’s body was found in a position that clearly indicate she had put up a fight. However, Paul’s face, hands, neck, back, legs and every inch of his body showed he did not have a nicks or scratches or bruises.

Gas Can

A melted gas can was found on the bed where Jennifer died. PAPD sent multiple detectives the first 24 hours to over 25 gas stations with Paul’s picture to see if he ever purchased a gas can. They came back empty handed. Sgt Maloney, the supervisor, testified on the stand that until that day in trial when he testified they were still looking to see if Paul ever purchased a gas can by going to 100s of gas stations and other places as well as looking at his credit card purchases. They came back empty handed also.

During the initial investigation, police searched the shed that is about 3 to 4 meters from the cottage for a gas can but they didn’t find any. When the landlord was asked whether he had a gas can he said he didn’t and that the gasoline operated lawn mower in the shed was not used because he had someone to come and do the lawn for him.

The lock on the shed was cut by the police, and the next morning the lock was replaced by the landlord. The landlord testified that Paul had no access to his shed and that he was the only one with the key to the shed.

In trial, the landlord testified that while cleaning up the shed he found a red plastic 5 gallon gasoline can.

The gas can was never tested for DNA nor dusted for fingerprints


The coroner found that Jennifer was strangled and then set on fire since they found no soot in the lungs. However, the coroner testified that the time of death could not have been determined due to the state of the burned body.

The coroner never took a vaginal swap from the victim although her inside was still intact and looking at the picture you can see that all her internal organs looked red and fresh and not yellow and did not show signs of burn. Her plastic breast implants were also intact.

The coroner took a DNA swap from the victim’s neck and back (which were not burnt) but they were never tested in the lab.


Other “evidence” the DA produced


The DA used a silly and laughable argument to say that Paul tried to explode the cottage because they had his finger print on a foil that covered one of the stove burners. Any hookah user knows that you have to cover the burner so that charcoal residue does not mess up your stove.
The DA tried to say that Paul had Jennifer’s phone on his person during the day, something that AT&T expert testified never happened.

The cologne

The ATF expert testified that she smelled cologne on paul’s clothing. When the accelerant sniffing dog was sent to search paul’s business she alerted on a piece if luggage in the basement. The dog handler told Paul to open the luggage (which belonged to a Friend). Paul opened it and in it was a bottle of cologne.

In his closing argument Chuck claimed that Paul drenched himself with cologne to throw off the dogs and an empty cologne bottle was found outside. LIE. Every one who knows Paul know that Paul wears cologne every day. (Ken talking about cologne). Also there is absolutely no mention of anyone finding empty cologne bottle as chuck claimed. There was an empty Petfume sample outside SAMPLE not cologne bottle.

What the jury did not get to see:

Jennifer’s past

Mental illness records

Psychiatric expert was prevented from testifying to the 7.5 hour interview she had with Paul neither was she allowed to testify on her assessment of Jennifer after reading thousands of pages of police reports and listening to tapes made by Jennifer.

The jury did not get to hear the judge who sealed the records say that Jennifer never mentions even once to her psychiatrist that she was afraid for her life from Paul.

Restraining orders and police report on other men

Declaration from Jen that she was afraid for her life from the two brothers just couple of weeks before her murder.

Threats from other individuals

Declarations from Jennifer that she lied when she said Paul threatened her.

Audio recordings that prove that Jennifer was a liar. Fraud cases by Jennifer and theft from others.

Destroyed tape by the Palo Alto Police Department.

The Hearsay Factor ( California Evidence Code Section 1390 )

Chuck Gillingham dragged the trial into January 2011 where evidence code 1390 would take effect. 1390 is a hearsay law that was used first on Paul Zumot’s case in the state of California. Paul was the first one to get convicted solely based on that hearsay rule. Absent of any other evidence of wrongdoing, judge David Cena still allowed hearsay to enter as evidence after the District Attorney felt that the shaky theory started to crumble under his feet. Three weeks into the trial Paul was offered a plea deal by Chuck, which was they would drop the arson charge and drop the first degree murder charge into a second degree. Paul said he will not plead guilty even for time served.


It is believed that Heather Marie Winters who took the stand,  lied about seeing Paul playing cards 2 days after the death of his girlfriend. Many witnesses and coworkers stated to the police that Paul was in a state of disbelief and was grieving and crying all the time. Paul had closed his place of business the day after Jennifer died in mourning.

Heather Marie Winters also said that she witnessed bruises on Jennifer that were done by Paul. Jennifer never ever claimed that she was hit by Paul and there is not ONE SINGLE picture for Jennifer with bruises on her. Jennifer was the type that calculated everything, if she had been hit, she would have taken picture. Jennifer ran to the police over a spit, you think she would let physical abuse just go like that? Besides, she does not have a single doctor or hospital report on any physical harm. She had one on her ex-boyfriend Raj and she ran to the police and made sure she took pictures of the bruises.

This is what heather bragged about on her FaceBook page:

The judge allowed people to take the stand to testify to something they said Jennifer said without verification that this thing ever happened.

When Jennifer accused Paul of cheating, Paul told her he is fed up with her lies and threats and took his blanket and left the house. She chased him to his business and when he refused to answer her calls and msgs she kicked the door and broke it. Paul called 911 but before the police got there she ran to the police station and accused Paul of threatening her.

The officers at the Palo Alto Police Department had Jennifer make a call in order to have his voice recorded threatening her. Paul’s reaction was a shock and told Jennifer he loved her and would never harm her and he doesn’t know why she would say that.

Guess what? Paul’s defense lawyer asked for that tape but was told by detective Sunseri that officer Jared Monroe had “mistakenly” stuck a sticker on the wrong side of the tape and ruined it.

Over two months after the police report Jennifer filed, PAPD wrote a supplimental report to say that Jennifer had said Paul planned a perfect murder. There is no evidence wheresoever that suggests that. Jennifer never recorded that on her tape, nor had told anyone of such thing. Paul’s computer’s show nothing about arson, murder, CSI, or any slight indication he was searching for anything sinister. However, since Paul had a solid alibi, a push like that helped the PAPD put in the heads of the jurors that Paul was capable of murder.

Two weeks after that incident Jennifer wrote a sworn declaration and submit it to a judge that Paul never threatened her. Judge David Cena did not allow the jury to see that declaration.

All hearsay witnesses said that Jennifer sounded frantic when she called them to say Paul had threatened her. Listen to her in her own voice talking to two of them minutes after the police left her house. Is this the voice of someone who is frantic?

On the same tape that Jennifer recorded illegally Jennifer lies about her life and about her father dying of cancer when he is very healthy, and still alive almost three years after that tape.

After the taped call that Jen made while angry at Paul for breaking up with her, she and Paul started getting death threats from the man she called and promised to take his side in an upcoming court then changed her mind.

The Joe Martinez statement that made him the “star witness” for the prosecution.

Joe was questioned by PAPD for 5 hours but the interview did not get taped for some mysterious malfunction of the tape recorder. Joe admitted to the interviewer detectives that he had done some ILLEGAL searches on citizens on his sherif’s computer. Joe Martinez was never disciplined by the sherif’s department. This offense gets other officers fired from the job for civil rights violations of American citizens yet Joe got to keep his job, why?

Joe had told the detectives that Paul told him that he stopped at the cottage for 15 mins before he went to the cottage, something that Paul denied every saying since he never stopped there. If Paul had stopped there for 10 to 15 mins like Joe claimed, then there is no way that Paul showed up at work the time he was there. Paul told everyone that after he went to the PAPD to pick the papers he went back to the house for 15 mins and then to the hookah spot where he counted the money and prepared the shop for the weekend.
The jury said that they believed Joe over Paul not knowing that Joe had broken the law, and that Joe allegedly had sex with a minor with four witnesses and the alleged sex is taped on the camera system.

If PAPD wanted to know if Paul ever went to the house, they would have checked the tracking system or GPS that Jennifer installed on Paul’s computer to monitor his whereabouts. They either did but did not like the results, or let that application expire so there is no evidence that he never went there.


Related Article


California Evidence Code Section 1390 States:

(a) Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the
hearsay rule if the statement is offered against a party that has
engaged or aided and abetted in the wrongdoing that was intended to,
and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
   (b) (1) The party seeking to introduce a statement pursuant to
subdivision (a) shall establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the elements of subdivision (a) have been met at a foundational
   (2) The hearsay evidence that is the subject of the foundational hearing is admissible at the foundational hearing. However, a finding
that the elements of subdivision (a) have been met shall not be
based solely on the unconfronted hearsay statement of the unavailable
declarant, and shall be supported by independent corroborative
   (3) The foundational hearing shall be conducted outside the
presence of the jury. However, if the hearing is conducted after a
jury trial has begun, the judge presiding at the hearing may consider
evidence already presented to the jury in deciding whether the
elements of subdivision (a) have been met.
   (4) In deciding whether or not to admit the statement, the judge
may take into account whether it is trustworthy and reliable.
   (c) This section shall apply to any civil, criminal, or juvenile
case or proceeding initiated or pending as of January 1, 2011.
   (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends
that date. If this section is repealed, the fact that it is repealed
should it occur, shall not be deemed to give rise to any ground for
an appeal or a postverdict challenge based on its use in a criminal
or juvenile case or proceeding before January 1, 2016.


Announcement From Administrator:

I want to welcome everyone and everyone to utilize
this blog to discuss issues of corruption and injustice
in government. I want to avoid censorship of comments
and I could not easily, with good concience, restrict
the speach of the people who are using this blog.
Everyone is welcome to come hear and say what they
will,  however I will ask a favor of everyone who comes here,
and ask all of you to please help preserve the integrity of
this blog, and PLEASE refrain from personal attacks on one another
and also from attacks upon those who are unable to defend
themselves here such as the deceased party and the
incarcerated party. It is clear that there are a lot of bitter
feelings between both families and that us understandable.  
Please focus on the issues on corruption,  etc. We may
disagree all you want, but I hope that we can do so in a
respectful and civil manner. This is not a requirement, it is
only a favor that I am asking. I hate censorship, and I want to
continue as long as possible whithout restricting
anyones speech.  I may do so in the future as a last resort  to
preserve the integrity and purpose of this forum. 

Thank you for Understanding.
Cary-Andrew Crittenden (Administrator)