DA FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS, BUT IT’S NO PISSING CONTEST EITHER!
Karen Wright, Was her actions Illegal or Just Bad Business? Or just an April Fools day prank by the D.A.’s Office? The Day after April Fool’s Day Community Activist, Karen Wright received this letter from the Office of the District Attorney, Paul Zellerbach. What’s foolish about the whole thing is that April Fools Day was the 160th day without the DA filing charges. The day Ms. Wright showed up to court in December 2012 could have been the first April Fools experience! The DA never showed because they never filed charges. Many in the community are asking if this is why scrutiny is now being placed on D.A Zellerbach’s office after a series of questionable actions. In Ms. Wright’s case, she even had to call to find out what the DA’s plans were, since they didn’t have the common courtesy to call her and postone the court day. Now according to the below letter, she appears to be tried and convicted by the DA’s office. The DA states, “You are advised that your actions on that occasion were criminal, and are punishable by a fine of up to the amount of $1,000.00 and /six months in the county jail.” It certainly seems a bit wreckless to create that assumption, being the very actions could have been challenged in the court of law, of course, her civil rights being infringed. If this ever happened or was the case, I’d suggest anyone to take case out of Riverside. But the bottom line if this was criminal and punishable, why no charges?
Now, we know according to Zellerbach letter, talking 16.8 seconds after the bell, it is a crime. So why wasn’t Mike Fine arrested when he past the bell beyond the 16 second rule? It’s quite possible that maybe it’s just important to cover your bases with campaign contributions. Possibly according to public records Zellerbach has. But I guess when citizens have true concerns they all appear to be dismissed as not applicable, or in Zellerbach’s famous words, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?” when it comes to the antics of elected officials.
Citizens participating in government are not called patriots; they are called gadflies. Newspapers perpetuate this idea that involved citizens are pests of the public process. This is a government of, by and for the elite — not we, the people! -Commenter Paul Jacobs from Temecula
More information continues to come out regarding Zellerbach office, according to The Rusted Bell (No relation to the Mayor), there’s a Federal Complaint to filed against his office. This in a case involving a Temecula Sheriff’s Deputy intentionally and deliberately leaving drugs in home where a 14 year child resided. The victims of a home based laptop business alleged they were searched in a series of three occasions, robbed at gun point. Allegedly Temecula Sheriff’s Department even used Walmart loss prevention agents to storm house. A complaint issued to the DA’s office by the small business has fallen on deaf ears by the D.A.’s office. Family alleges that the DA’S office handled by Paul Zellerbach is deliberately and intentionally stalling time to allow for limitations to run out on these Officers and Civilians (Walmart Loss Prevention Agents..) Victims intend to have ALL past Search Warrants involving this Team of Officers Reviewed.
Something which is interesting, word is coming down the pipeline from an anonymous source that Zellerbach in his younger days may have crossed the line. Did Zellerbach have a stalking issue with a former girlfriend years ago? What would this mean now if anything, about Zellerbach’s current disposition?
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT ME TO DO?
In response to the accusations that there may be a strained relaltions between his DA’s office and Riverside Police Department, Zellerbach fired back according to statement from the City News Service, “This shouldn’t be a pissing contest where one calls out the other for not doing something,” he said, “We work hand-in-hand.” Ahh.. the visual on that last statement by Paul just didn’t sit right.. Who uses phrases as this in a news conference? This news conference was in reference to the allegation that some domestic violence cases take a back seat in Riverside County. Well whatever the case may be, Zellerbach may be up for the competition. “Any takers?”
A question for City News, “Are you on file with the DA’s Office for this reporting, as TMC is?”
In an incident that made national news, Public Speaker Karen Wright appeared at her December 27th court date regarding her charge of disrupting a public meeting. Later found through a public request act of the police report, City Attorney Gregory Priamos had given instruction to RPD Officer Sahagun to stop Wright from going past the three minute allotted time by sixteen seconds.
Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos Riverside DA Paul Zellerbach
It also appears that City Attorney Greg Primos made an important journal, the American Bar Association Journal, which states, “City Attorney Blaimed for Arrest of Woman, 60, Who Exceeded the 3 minute Speech Limit at Council Meeting.” One commenter on the journal stated, Nothing says: “We really do value citizens’ opinions on Council business!” like armed police ready to cuff speakers for exceeding the three-minute limit.
The fun simply never seems to stop with the Priamos’s, it must be it the blood. Take a gander at this L.A. Times Article where no one seems to know who paid the sports players at USC, but Greg’s name keeps coming up! First, the wife then the twins… sound like a skit of “Who’s on first!”
The situation became increasingly incomprehensible when Priamos would not comment do to “attorney-client privilege.” Attorney client privilege? That’s what we said… In lieu things continued to take a strange turn when the filing by the Paul Zellerbach’s District Attorney’s office was never issued. Karen was told by the court to call the DA’s office to find out if the DA intends to file or not. Attorney Letitia Pepper attempted to request the issue be addressed in court so she could ask for a dismissal. The court would not allow this. The waiting game continues, since the DA did not have the courtesy to follow through, the justice system leaves Ms. Wright in the dark at this point, and she herself must make the effort to contact and find out their intentions. How many DA departments be connected to and placed on hold to ask the question, “Mr. DA, do you plan to file charges against me?” Could this inaction by the DA’s office be construed as a continued form of harassment toward Ms. Wright? Or to continue the confusion so a warrant for her arrest is issued? That’s so Riverside. Most Riversidian’s agree, the Council and Mayor should have dropped the charges rather than enduring more city embarrassment, but currently the DA appears to be dancing around the issue.. So what is DA Paul Zellerbach’s relationship with the City of Riverside? Possibly with BB&K? The Riverside Grand Jury? Local Superior Court Judges? The Attorney General Office of the State of California? and of course local cronies? Well…
Outdance the DA on the current issues? Tough competition, any takers?
One of the first items for new Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey would have been to drop charges. Currently, Chief Sergio Diaz has yet to publicly apologize to Ms. Wright for his behavior and unrestrained verbality toward her earlier this year at a City Council Meeting. No complaints were issued against Chief Diaz by Wright. Chief Diaz was not arrested at this incident for his disturbance at Council Chambers. So it appears that there may two sets of rules, one for officials and one for residents, which seems to go against the very fabric of what this nation was built on.
So the citation issued by the police lists a court date. You check the docket the day before and can’t find your name, you call the DA and they say they are still consulting. You are then in a position where you still have to go to court because you don’t want to have the DA file at the last minute, you not show and the judge issue a bench warrant. You also don’t want to appear in court without an attorney, so you have that exspence. I’m sorry but it looks like they are unfairly jerking Ms. Wright around. This case should have been dismissed. Shame on the city of Riverside and shame on the DA. – Kevin Dawson, Commenter on the PE
Just wait until the trial and CA Greg Priamos takes the stand under oath and has to testify who ordered him to order the officer to “stop” her. I don’t think his “apology” will quite cut it here. – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE
Spokeshole Spokesperson for the Riverside City DA’s Office
Okay John! this can expressly be construed as the DA does not have a case. Hall went on to say, “There’s nothing that we have to do by law to notify anyone that nothing’s going to be done on that particular day.” Okay John, I get it, you have the power but you had over 8 weeks to figure this out! What goes? By the way do you take dance lessons, because it appears you are dancing around the issue as well as the Big Kahuna, Zellerbach. He further stated according to the Press Enterprise, that in the past six years, only one other case has come in under penal code section § 403 — disturbing a public meeting — and the district attorney ended up filing different charges against the suspect. Penal Code § 403 states every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So they couldn’t charge someone with the original arrest charge of penal code § 403 and had to concoct subsequent charge or unlterior trumped up charge? So why would the DA have to do this? Would it be because of the embarrassment of the whole charge to begin with? As of January 4, 2013, Wright’s case remains “under review” and remains unlisted on the courts databases. “Under review?” Is this code word for “no case?” It’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office show on a court date, it’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office collaborate with the defendent, otherwise can this be construed by the DA’s office of a pronounce expression of arrogance? Information for the DA’s Office only.. we have included a printable icon for ease of printability in order for the DA’s office to file TMC articles..
According to a Press Release, Councilman Paul Davis says that City Attorney Gregory Priamos was soley responsible for the directive to arrest Public Speaker Karen Wright if she spoke beyond the three minute rule, completely disregarding the authority of the Council and Mayor. Again a secondary example was seen when City Attorney Scott Barber spent $2 million dollars without Council approval. The question many are asking is “Who’s running the store?”, “Who’s in charge?” According to Columist Dan Bernstein of the Press Enterprise, it really appears that Riverside’s City Attorney Greg Priamos is running the show. Probably not without the help of the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, which have been siphoning hundred’s of thousands of dollars in legal fees without a contract! How should we explain this to the taxpayer? Possibly “attorney client privelidge?”
What about our concerns with Connie Leach, former wife of Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach. The Grand Jury report was thrown out without a thorough interview process, therefore and incomplete investigation.
Why did Paul Zellerbach’s office not jump on and investigate the illegal transfer of money from the citizens water fund to the General Fund? You must understand why we had to go to outside Federal agencies. We couldn’t have him ponder if it was “illegal or just bad business?”
THE CLAPPING GAME, THE MAYOR AND LETITIA PEPPER…
James Roberts, reporter for the News Caller, covering the High Desert News, gives his play by play analysis of the events that fateful day when a citizen decided to approval clap. Roberts analyzes the First Amendment, the proper role of government and the nanny state; whereby no ones feeling can be hurt. Roberts also mentions that there were others clapping while Letitia was clapping. The question then arises is to why was Ms. Pepper targeted by Mayor Bailey? According to a statement given to the Press Enterprise, Mayor Bailey stated, ” I felt like she came down there with a purpose to get arrested and to provoke me into that response and she gave me no choice.”
Letitia Pepper, Esq. sent this letter in a form of an email to the Council and Mayor, July 2, 2013 to reiterate her position on clapping. Currently the City of Riverside has no rule on clapping, according to Ms. Pepper if would illegal to adopt a clapping rule after the fact. Mayor Rusty Bailey carries a Political Science Degree from West Point and was also a government teacher at Poly High.
Currently, according to the Letitia Pepper, Esq., she has attained an actual copy of the citizen arrest complaint against her by Mayor Rusty Bailey. It appears that Mr. Independent Voice himself, Mayor Rusty Bailey, crossed out the section where it discloses it’s a misdemeanor to make a false arrest. Who is able to do that? Again, this appears to always come up time and time again, are there two sets of rules? One for City Officials and one for the Citizens? With the city’s track record it certainly appears so. Regardless, Ms. Letitia Pepper went back to the RPD Station and filed a false arrest complaint against the Mayor Rusty Bailey. What will happen now, will his pop, Judge Bailey gather his network of friends together to help his son? Will Councilman Mike Gardner state again this time that she deserved it, as in Karen Wright’s case?
WONDER HOW MANY TIME MAYOR BAILEY PASSES THIS STATEMENT NEXT TO CITY HALL?
OOPS, THE GRAND JURY JUST RELEASED THERE FINDINGS BUT PRESS ENTERPRISE FORGOT TO MENTION THIS LITTLE TIDBIT OF INFO ABOUT CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS!
According to the Grand Jury report below and the full document to follow, they found that Priamos spilled the beans after he was admonished by the Grand Jury not to discuss any of the details of the Dunbar case. The City Attorney appears to have thumbed his nose at them and decided to do whatever he pleased, thus violating PC 939.22. Further, when Priamos asked for a postponement of the initial interview, the Grand Jury asked an alternate in his office could take his place. He answered he was the only ‘qualified’ person.. That’s has to be a slap in the face to those who work under him.
EMAIL REGARDING MARY SHELTON IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST THE CITY ATTORNEY.
From: “Gardner, Mike” <MGardner@riversideca.gov> To: Mary Shelton Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Riverside County GJ reports
Why’ll a new book is becoming the rage in Riverside, called the “Shyster’s Daughter”, written by Paula Priamos, a relation to our City Attorney Gregory Priamos, which takes an intricate view of the family environment in which she grew up in.
Does Greg Priamos have a family history of unscrupulous legal work? Cousin Paula Priamos wrote a book the Shyster’s Daughter which give insight to the family dysfunctionality and immoral legal dealings. When contacted by Dvonne Pritruzzello, Paula Priamos assertained to remain distanced from cousin City Attorney Gregory Priamos..
Excerpts: “Your lucky he didn’t kill you,” I say. If death didn’t get him in the form of an actual bullet, it could’ve gotten him from shock. Primos men are known for strong minds and weak hearts.
“I see my father’s body doubled over the wheel. I see his chest and arms spilling out of the car, his head dangling, blood seeping out of the wet hole in his scalp.”
Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos Cousin and Writer Paula Priamos
WHAT’S GOING ON WITH HIGHGROVE?
Highgrove residents having been paying into the 11.5% general fund transfer through their utility bill, but the clincher is that they do not recieve City services in return. They are now questioning the legal application of Measure A toward their water rates. The folowing article was taken from the June 2013 issue of the Highgrove Happenings Newspaper which also appears on-line at: www.highgrovehappenings.net CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE EXTENDED VERSION BY R.A. “BARNEY” BARNETT OF THE ARTICLE IN THE JULY 2013 SIXTEEN PAGE RELEASE, INCLUDED IS A WATER HISTORY BY LOCAL RESIDENT SCOTT SIMPSON
Highgrove Happenings Newspaper
Riverside’s Measure A and how it relates to Highgrove resident’s water bill payments
From the desk of R.A. “Barney” Barnett
If you pay your water bill to the city of Riverside do you know that a portion of your water bill is not going for water related services?
I learned recently via a phone call from the Press Enterprise that residents of Highgrove who pay their water bill to the City of Riverside have 11.5 % of their water bill going to the City of Riverside’s General Fund that can be used for Riverside City Police protection, Riverside Library, or Riverside City Street repairs and other expenses not related to water service.
As you know, Highgrove receives protection from the Riverside County Sheriff Department, not the City of Riverside Police Department and we have our own library in Highgrove. And the streets are maintained by Riverside County since we are in the un-incorporated part of Riverside County.
Some Highgrove residents receive water service from the Riverside/Highland Water Co. that has offices in Grand Terrace. The newer homes in Highgrove have Riverside/Highland water service whereas most of the homes west of the Union Pacific Railroad track and portions of the older neighborhoods north of Center St. by Michigan Ave. have City of Riverside water service.
Alicia Robinson, the Press Enterprise reporter, said that since Highgrove is outside the city limits of Riverside, Highgrove residents do not get to vote on whether or not 11.5 % of their water bill payments should go to the City of Riverside’s General Fund. But these funds can be used for city services other than water related expenses. To make matters worse, some residents within the city limits of Riverside have Municipal Water and do not pay their water bill to the City of Riverside but these residents will get to vote on Measure A because they reside within the city limit boundaries of Riverside.
This all may seem a little confusing but when you add it up, it amounts to $6.7 million dollars per year that is being transferred from revenues received for water bill payments to the City of Riverside’s General Fund for purposes other than water related issues.
Here are the facts as I understand them:
If Measure A passes, this amendment will allow the City of Riverside to continue taking 11.5 % of Highgrove resident’s water bill payments and putting the money directly into Riverside’s General Fund. A lawsuit has been filed based on the transfer being an illegal maneuver.
I recently received a mail-out addressed to: “Postal Customer” which appears to be a sample of the ballot that has the City of Riverside’s logo as the return address. It states: “Official Measure A Ballot Question” which is a 4 page mailer that lists some of the services that would be cut if Measure
A fails. This list includes cutting 9 police officers and 12 firefighters and other city programs. Critics of Measure A say the city is pointing to public safety and youth program cuts as a scare tactic to get public support to help pass Measure A.
Also, in a half page Advertisement in the Press Enterprise of May 26, 2013, the supporters of Measure A (Riverside Public Utilities) stated the following in the second paragraph of their advertisement:
“But for Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), our role is also defined by what is in our name-“Public Utilities”. That means that we are owned by the community that we serve, and that each and every user who is expecting those energy and water services to be there at the flip of a switch or the turn of a tap is a shareholder in our company”.
So if Highgrove residents are “shareholders” in this public utility, the Highgrove residents who pay the City of Riverside for their water should get to vote. Aren’t we part of the “each and every user” who is expecting water to come out of the tap if we pay our water bill?
If we do not get a vote on Measure A, then our water bills should be reduced by 11.5 % so we are not paying for services that we do not receive. The money diverted into the general fund is totally unrelated to paying our water bill and opponents say it is a violation of proposition 218 which was approved back in 1996.
Measure A is on the June 4, 2013 ballot. If you received a 4 page flyer addressed to “Postal Customer” and you live outside the city limits, you will not get to vote about your 11.5 % of your payment going to other uses in the City of Riverside. But if you do not pay the entire amount of your water bill, you will be considered delinquent and subject to having your water shut off. Even if Measure A passes you may see more lawsuits about the legality of this vote and how revenue is being collected for water service and used for other purposes.
ETHIC’S COMPLAINT: JUST A FORMALITY? COUNCIL NO SHOW, BUT LAWYERED UP FOR ETHICS SHOWDOWN: PANEL FINDS NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS BY COUNCIL..SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED?
I guess the question becomes what is the purpose of a ethics panel but a visual formality designed to fail for the residents, and each time based on criteria, fall in favor of the complainnant by an orchestrated series of line items.
Holley Whatley, a outside Prop 218 attorney, hired by council in care of you the taxpayer to represent them, stated it is not up to the council to decide whether the language in Measure A was improper, it is up to the courts to decide.
Originally Measure A language was criticized, because it remained a violation of Prop. 218, the very reason the City was sued in the first place. The Measure was sold to the public as a charter amendment, rather than a tax. This was brought to council attention early on. Later during the campaign the City and its staff were changing their tune and had to admit it was a general tax. Certainly the ballot Measure states one thing, but it
Justin Scott Coe, “I feel people fully understood what they were voting on.”
Norman Powel, Chair, “I have some problem with the wording, but I’m not a constitutional attorney.”
But does the council have a duty to research and investigate the correctness of an issue before a decision is made in the best interest of the taxpayer? Does the same apply to the Ethics Panel? If so why does the criteria to elude to a finding contradict it’s design? Is it simply constructed to always resolve in an appropriate and desired conclusion? So far there has never been a conclusive finding when a complaint has been filed. Why is that, well when you look at the overally construction, it appears that the criteria in order to reach a finding, is orchestrated and designed to reach a conclusion of a favorable resolve for the City, not for the residents. Each and every time, therefore, is the Ethics Panel only a formality? A distraction? A concerted formula designed by a legal eagle to resolve in a favorable conclusion each and every time? Well, to many in the community it appears so.
On June 4, 2013 a General Municipal Election was held for the purpose of submitting a “general tax” to the qualified electors pursuant to Article 13C of the California Constitution.
This General tax was submitted to the qualified electors and Designated as Measure A on the ballot, The Riverside Local Services and Clean Water Measure proposed to add 1201.4 to the city charter, to authorize a “general tax” pursuant to Article 13 c of the California Constitution.
The No on Measure A committee has repeatedly stated that Measure A violates Prop 218 and that voters cannot approve a charge on a water bill which will be used for anything other than water purposes. This is inaccurate.
Article 13 c expressly provides that the voters can approve a general purpose tax, such as Measure A.
Article 13 d applies to property related fees, and is not, or has ever been at issue here.
To hold that voters cannot vote to decide upon Measure A, would take away the power of the voters under the CA Constitution to vote on taxes. The city manager and I have repeatedly responded to this inaccurate assertion on an almost weekly basis at City Council Meetings in April, May and June, leading up to the election.
Moreover, the City Manager specifically noted during his presentation on May 7 discussion calendar, that Measure A is a “general purpose tax”. The City Manager detailed the financial support that Measure A would provide to the General Fund.
Deputy District Attorney Susan Wilson further reinterated during City Council Discussion on May 7, 2013 that this was a “general purpose tax” under Article 13 c of the California Constitution.
Most importantly the city met its legal obligation under the expressed terms of the settlement agreement, that the revenue transfer, which is how it is defined in the settlement, be submitted to the voters for approval at the June election. On June 4, 2013 the voters approved this general tax by an overwhelming majority in accord with Proposition 218. The voters have now spoken and the city will act in accord with the will of the voters.
What Priamos forgot to mention was that the majority of voters read it as a Charter Amendment; except Justin Scott Coe of the Ethics Panel who saw general tax somewhere in there… Initially the City was parading around the City Council Members, City Manager Scott Barber, Chief of Police Sergion Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Earley on a City wide Measure A informational tour. Chief Earley at the Goeske Center was pinned by one resident, who he then admitted to the public that Measure A was a general tax. City Manager Scott Barber had to follow shortly and admit the same. In the following document, the city is already working, it states that they are ‘not increasing water rates’ but are planning to ‘consider modifications’ to it’s water rates… Okay does anybody smell something fishy, or is it just me? Further it states they want to ‘amend water rate schedules.’
Don’t forget to show to question these activities on Friday July 19, 2013, Public Utilities Board Room at 8:30 am, 3901 Orange Street, Riverside, CA