No one seems to know at City Hall the whereabouts of Councilman Andy Melendrez and his Legislative Field Representative Clarissa Cervantes. Of course, Councilman Melendrez was a no show at Tuesday’s November 18th City Council Meeting, and would residents be unable to reach Legislative Field Aid Clarissa Cervantes for residential concerns in Ward 2? So where art thou?
UPDATE: 10.22.2014 AM: It appears that the both of them are out of state on unknown issues. The question is, are they representing the concerns of their constituents?
UPDATE:10.22.2014 PM: What we are being told by TMC’s Center for Investigative Reporting*, (which consist of myself and two other guys), is that Councilman Andy Melendrez was at a conference in Austin, Texas related to National League of Cities, while he’s Legislative Field Representive was at a conference in Washington D.C. Both conferences appear to be related to Latino issues concerning immigration. The question is, were they both there in an official capacity representing the constituents of the City of Riverside? If so, this could be a violation, since the elements of the conference were never brought to Council for approval. Secondly, were these trips paid for by the taxpayer? Which could be second violation. Thirdly, if these conferences were related to personal points of view or partisan issues which do not benefit the greater good of the community, this could an additional problem that may be raised. If these trips were paid for personally, or by an outside group or association, that would be fine as long as they are not there in the official capacity of representing their constituents. Fourthly, a Legislative Field Representative usually handles the issues and concerns of the constituents while a Council person is unavailable or out of town or state. It is unusual that the Legislative Field Representative would be sent to a conference at all. Fifthly, were they both on the clock being paid by taxpayer monies while on this trip? This may also be a violation.
UPDATE: 11.23.2014: OUTRAGE HITS COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ’S FACEBOOK SITE.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
One commenter ask that we should keep comments to ourselves, which to our interpretation to not express an opinion. Well this are the questions people are asking, they come to us by phone calls and emails, we attempt to find the facts. The basis of our Republic is transparency, and it is our duty as citizens to ask these questions. The problem with our system of government is that people are to afraid to ask. We hope we serve as a voice for those people. We ask the above questions with reference to a our right to do so. Where taxpayer monies are involved, your money, everyone should be concerned, and not be afraid, especially in the Latino community..
Thomas Jefferson once said the following which we must remember: “Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!”
President Harry S. Truman once said with reference to entering politics: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
We must remember this is all about the taxpayers, not about politicians…
We do attempt to investigate, without reference to name calling as one Melendrez supporter seems to find necessary to express, (and I encourage it because I’m also a supporter of our 1st Amendment right to free speech). The facts speak for themselves and that is all that should be important.
Not sure what the commenter means by “Instigate,” but please email us regarding your concerns.
UPDATE: 11.26.2014: Again what seems to come to the forefront once again is an abuse of power. This is about Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey and City Manager Scott Barber, both who sanctioned the trips of Councilman Andy Melendrez as a representative of the City of Riverside. Though Legislative Field Representive Clarissa Cervantes’s trip was paid for by a PAC (Political Action Committee), she still represented the City of Riverside and Councilman Andy Melendrez without Council approval! Once again Mayor Bailey needs to revisited the mayor job description within are City Charter, and stop being King or Emperor Bailey. Before the door hits Scott Barber in the hindside, he of course is expected to pay back the residents of the City of Riverside back the monies he approved for his own investigation. Chief Sergio Diaz who has been taking a low profile these days, needs to do the same.. These two are not poor, and can afford to pay back the residents for misappropriation of funds.
We entrusted you with our money, instead you used it as your own personal piggy bank.
UPDATE: 10.22.2014: JUST IN, COUNCILMAN JIM PERRY RECALL PAPERS ACCEPTED: THE RECALL PROCESS CAN NOW GO FORWARD.
WILL FORMER COUNTRY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL ZELLERBACH BE CHARGED?
WHAT DOES ZELLY BABY REALLY THINK OF THE CHARGES?
According to the Indio Police Department, according to a KESQ news brief back in May 2014, is recommending several charges against Riverside County District Attorney Paul Zellerbach. Their investigation was given to the California Attorney General’s Office Tuesday, a spokesman for the AG’s office has confirmed.
In a news release from the Indio Police Department it states they have requested various charges:
· Petty Theft (488 California Penal Code)
· Vandalism Under $400 (594(2)(a) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing to Place Unauthorized Signs (602(f) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing with Intent to Cause Damage (602(k) California Penal Code)
· Embezzlement (504 California Penal Code)
· Theft of Public Funds (424(a)(1) California Penal Code)
The Indio police department was unable to give specific details into each charge, only that the first four listed are misdemeanors while the last two are felonies. If convicted, Zellerbach would be unable to run for or hold public office under state law. So far as we know it, nothing has been updated by the Attorney Generals office, which is highly unusual, considering how they respond to the same case if it were someone else.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
What should be brought to the forefront is that Liebert Cassidy Whitmore is actually representing Councilman Paul Davis in the current case of Raychele Sterling vs. City of Riverside et al. Liebert Cassidy Whitemore is also the law firm that is doing the investigation for the City of Riverside against, of course, Councilman Paul Davis. So the firm is defending him but at the same time crucifying him and sticking the knife into him! Those in Riverside who keep up with the politics see this time and time again. Those in Riverside who are sleep, need to wake up and see what is happening in your City.
Additionally, I will be filing a bar complaint against you and your firm for violations of conflicts of interest rules, since your firm is my direct representation in the active case Sterling v City of Riverside et al. I have never waived my conflict rights in this case and neither can the council. Regards,
Council Member –
This according to Councilman Paul Davis’s personal statement as indicated below, under “Full Davis Personal Statement on this Investigation”.
The letter is directed toward Mark Mayerhoff, which Davis states he is “shocked” that his firm has released an incomplete investigation, as a result of the following:
In the letter Attorney Mark Mayerhoff states the Investigation that will be release to Press Enterprise reporter Alicia Robinson will be redacted (to obscure or remove from a document prior to publication or release). Of course we asked the question of Why? Especially in the name of transparency. Mayerhoff also states that he attached an unredacted copy of the investigation to Councilman Davis. We have the unredacted investigation as follows, all 417 pages. Alicia, if you need the full unredacted copy just download from our site!
These issues that Soubirous and I have been charged with is misappropriations of Public Funds for Political Gain and it is about exacting retaliation for our not being the “Go along to get along” guys, like many of the rest. The funds issue will be handled in another venue, as Adams and Bailey appropriated the funds without authority of the council. Evidence will be produced to prove this up. What happened is Barber files the complaint then funds the investigation under his 50K expense authority and they split up the contracts into four separate ones to equate to $200k authorization.
Interestingly enough the hired gun law firm and investigator failed to insert my interview “Eratta”, correction sheet into the investigation materials and even failed to incorporate the right statements in to Gumpart’s statements, where I said “Surely Not” and the stenographer records “Sure”. Gumport does this so that he can make a point in his opinion on his questions as to the effect of my statements on CM Barber being able to do his job. However, I have attached is separately.
More to come.
Councilmember – Ward 4
City of Riverside
And of course it is not over yet! There is “MORE TO COME” according to Councilman Paul Davis! We will sit back and wait because it will be sooner than you think. Paul Davis’s Interview “Eratta” is as follows:
He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact. Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager? The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council. Certainly violated the Charter Amendment. What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them? A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.
What is now remarkable is the fact that Scotty is creating more liability as what appears to be personality problems at the expense of the taxpayer! It is now becoming evident he doesn’t care about the residents of Riverside, if not, only for himself. Will Scotty sue the City of Riverside? Or I should say, the taxpayer because of his perception of in house politics? Remember Scotty is a remnant of the Hudson legacy; he, Brad Hudson was convicted of credit card fraud. But our current Mayor Rusty Bailey considers him a moral compass, go figure..
Some things never change as this is common in Riverside. Brad Hudson ran the city and the Council as the Mayor was just a figure head madding back room deals, traveling, giving speeches and breaking a tie vote. Well a city attorney made the law up as he went but talked his way out. As the Mayor left and the hopes of an honest Mayor we saw a candidate who had powerful friends of the former Mayor. yes false fliers were sent out but the candidate got caught and apologized, using illegal Fed agent license plates and more corruption, as he was the choice of the people. To start his term he made national news by having a citizen arrested for speaking over 3 minutes, a lawyer arrested for clapping and big money was made with the help of the city Attorney in red lining homes for illegal foreclosure. People were in place to defend and protect the criminal acts. Brad Hudson skipped out along with the Deputy Attorney after illegally buying Glock Hand guns as the Feds closed in but the council did nothing. A replacement who would follow orders was needed and the Code Enforcement Director was picked. Things went for bad to worse as all violations by the council insiders were ignored but the firing of a Deputy attorney who reported illegal action was done as Mrs. Sterling was out. HR answered to Hudson and that was well known. Loveridge was funny as his old time lies did not work on a new generation. Just think Adams history of assaulting his girl friend, messing in a police promotion and as a veteran police officer taking illegal plates still got elected to council again and now running for Congress. Wow we have enough corrupt Congressmen in DC but at lease Riverside has an Honest Congressman in Mark. Well Davis and Mike know their honesty and loyalty to their Wards is not what the Bailey team wants. Most people know a misdemeanor is a violation that gets you jail time and a fine. But it seems Priamos missed that class in law school. Mike charged with hear say that failed even paying to LA lawyers 200,000 dollars which a law student would know. Then Davis with documents as evidence and wow the filing of complaints done wrong but no problem as even the Brown Act was violated twice and no due process in either case. Conflict of interest even paid Attorneys were clue less. The Mayor is spending allot to get two council out in the next election and put Bailey team members in their seats. What is clear is Riverside no longer wants citizens to elect their representatives but will let the Mayor do it. The way things are going Bailey wont need an election to continue as Mayor he will appoint himself. Scott Barber is a good worker and did a great job giving out tickets in Code Enforcement rather legal or illegal and really wanted the city managers job to do as he was told. Anyone who lives in the city of Riverside knows how things are done and employees/appointees take orders and follow them. I remember when we were asked for bond for the Library to help the children well after the money was given oops the council and mayor used it for something else only to come back again to ask for money for the Library. Using citizens and wasting money while making back room deals will continue until the voters clean out the corrupt elected officials and the Bailey Team. The Feds and the State are likely to come in and then the blame game but it will be great to see Brad Hudson and Greg Priamos finally answer to their crimes over the years. – AirJackie, Commenter to TMC
WATER CONSERVATION: THE FAUX DROUGHT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. We don’t have a drought in the City of Riverside, but it seems the City will create one in order take advantage of fines and maintain the current water rates. The clincher is that the City passed an ordinance to comply with State Law. They didn’t have to because we are exempt because we own our water supply. We as a City are also under a court order, if we don’t use the water we lose it! Since we own our own water in no position to declare a water shortage! Large educational institutions such as RCC and UCR are exempt.
This is how contradictary this ordinance is, if you are a recipient of Gage Canal water, there are no restrictions, you can use as much as appropriated yearly to you depending on your shares. That means you can run the water into the street if you want. Of course, I’m not advocating that, but the point is that we have a unfair application of the laws, maybe because the City can always depend on squeezing a little more from the residents. The City didn’t have to pass the ordinance, but they did, they did because there is a monetary MO behind it. Education institutions such as UCR and RCC are exempt. One of the absolute benefits of living in Riverside is ownership of water. You can maintain you pool and jacuzzi as long as you don’t “overfill.” Did you get that one? Who overfills their pool? The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells. There is plenty of water. This is focused on an income source, and that income source is us. This political move also seems another way that the City can put one neighbor against the other by the snitch call to code enforcement, the other police force. It’s time to see what is occurring in the City of Riverside and remove your Councilperson. In my ward it is Councilman Mike Gardner.
Remember, approximately 20% of our water is sold to Western Municipal. Are we to conserve more water so that the City can sell more off to other communities for a higher profit. Cite the citizens on water violations to increase profits. Then they will then ask us to use less water then they will raise water rates to increase profits. You will use less and pay more. Then they will manipulate the tier pricing seasonally or at will to increase even more profits. The more money in the water fund, the more that 11.5% water transfer to the General Fund will have.
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Interesting yet, manipulating the data. They first mentioned that ground water levels have dropped due to increased use/demand from consumers but, the graph displays only gw available in acre feet. The data that should have been shown in the graph in order to keep consistent with the written conversation is depth to ground water in the wells (1934-today). They have the data. The graph displays how much water was available every 2 yrs from 1934 on. This is the amount legally available to harvest annually. It is close to displaying how much water(rainfall) went into the basin each season. 1960-64 was the driest period on record but historical references are available of other dry and wet periods back to the early 1800’s. What the graph really shows is that Riverside takes about 10% of the annual harvest of water supplied by normal rainfall. The other water agencies share in the other 90%. The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells.
Of course in the current dry spell (notice there were several dry and wet periods 10 yrs apart) the available gw has decreased some due to demand but mostly due to low rainfall in the local mountains. Look at the wet years; almost instant recharge of the gw basin occurs as soon as we get the first normal or above normal rainfall. This shows the amount available to the various water harvesters is the amount of water that recharges the basin each year or about 500,000 acre feet on average. (this is detailed in the Court settlement order of 1980 settling the big water rights lawsuit filed in 1964.) There is plenty of water available in the gw basin. The Court has limited access to most of it.
Currently, Riverside uses about 84,000 acre feet of gw per year. Half or 44,000 acre feet is harvested from the San Bernardino Basin. The other 40,000 comes mostly from the North Riverside Basin from a well field near the soccer complex and old dead golf course. The North Riverside Basin is geologically and hydraulically connected to the San Bernardino Basin. Ground water flows from the San Bernardino Basin into the North Riverside Basin continuously via a narrow under ground channel beneath the Santa Ana River in Colton.
Now, lets get back to water rights. A Water Right is a legal claim to a fixed amount of water harvested annually from a defined source such as, a river. Your claim can be legally challenged at any time by another water harvester from the same water source. There are pre-1914 water rights and post-1914 water rights. The difference is the date of first lawful claim to the water. Post-1914 water rights claims are granted, processed, regulated and disputed through or by the Calif. Dept. of Water Resources. This legal status encompasses all of the state’s water resources unused or in its natural state post-1914 water law. This is about 62% of the states total water resources during average rainfall periods. The UlS. Constitution prohibits congress from passing retroactive law so, we get old law still in effect for many and the new law applying only to those engaging in the regulated activity as of the date of new law. Two systems of legal claims to water co-existing at the same time.
The other pre-1914 water sources comprising 38% of the states water resources pre-existed the 1914 change in state law toward state regulation of water harvesting and the creation of the Dept. of Water Resources. So if you held a legal water right prior to 1914 it was formed under old law dating back to the founding of the state circa 1849 and before John North et al started up the land development scheme (the Southern California Colony Assn) that became the city of Riverside circa 1885.
From 1850-1914 the primary concern of Californians and incoming settlers was the availability of water and the price! People were experiencing the tyranny of corporate monopolies with the railroad. Railroads arbitrarily raised freight prices after settlers moved in. Cheep rates to draw in settlers and raise them later to extract profits from them when they financially can’t leave. The basic lack of competition in a natural monopoly like a railroad sucked the money out of the local farmers. It was feared that the same monopolistic behavior would (and was) occur with water providers. The state legislature of 1850-1905 was very serious about curbing monopolistic water providers. 1852 saw the first laws regulating the formation of water companies and pricing. Our state Senator of the day, John Satterwaite, authored several laws including one passed in 1862, the Satterwaite Act or Civil Code 552. John North incorporated the So. Calif. Colony Assn. under this law to make profits from the sale of land with a guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity. In part it says, “The corporation is formed to build a water distribution (canal) system to make the land livable and profitable. The corporation making its’ profits from the sale of the land and the water sold at cost.”
This is further elaborated on in Superior Court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court decisions leading to Cal. Supreme, Price v. the Riverside Land & Irrigation Co., 1880. Where the law and lower court rulings were placed in context justifying the Supreme Courts decision. In part saying, ” The corporation having formed under the law of 1862 (civil code 552) may not make profits from the sale and delivery of water. The water belongs to the land and is fixed to it permenently. The price set for delivery of water is based only upon the cost of operating and maintaining the canal, pipes, pumps or other infrastructure annually, Water is not sold as a comodity the lawful price to only recover the cost of providing water to the land.” Including that this was a contractual obligation of the original sale of Colony land(s) to settlers. So, the So. Calif. Colony Assn. contractually sold parcels of land with the advertised and promissed guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity to the land, a contractual obligation that continues forever to pass with the land ownership and successive owners of the water company including a future municipality. This is published case law stating that state water law of the time is still in effect and contractural obligation both pass to successive owners. The water right is fixed to the land receiving water permanently and cannot be altered. State constitutional law upholding and the U.S. Constitution, fourteenth amendment protection of lawful contracts upholding. Land owners served by the city of Riverside water dept. as successor owner of the Riverside land &Irrigation Co. cannot be denied the water they have always received in the same amount and quality as originally delivered to the land and in perpetuity at not more than the cost to deliver the water.
So we are in a period of drought. The law and the Cal. Sup. 1880 says, “The (city of Riverside) water company must declare a water supply emergency to deviate from it otherwise lawful supplying of water to the land, in order to initiate any form of reducing water supply or consumption during the emergency period. It must also stop connecting new land/customers to the distribution system until the emergency is canceled.”
Hence, Riverside cannot charge us fees for conservation programs because that is not a cost of operating and maintaining the infrastructure/service. Riverside cannot do anything other than request Volunteer water conservation. Riverside cannot raise prices to force consumers to use less water. Riverside cannot use tiered punitive pricing to force less water consumption. You have a lawful right to water in the same amount as was originally delivered to your land. My parcel was originally planted in citrus pre-1890 and irrigated with about 8 acre feet of water per acre, the water also being of drinking water quality and used to supply the house. So my water allotment for our .84 acre parcel is about 6 acre feet of water per year. After that, Riverside can require conservation and maybe raise prices.
RUSTY’S RED TROLLEY! DOES HE THINK IT CAN? MEETING PLANNED FOR JULY 30ST, 2014 TO EXAMIN THE FEASABILITY STUDY! The City of Riverside received a Cal Trans Grant of $237,000.00 to do a feasibility study, and you better believe with this money the focus is on a reason to have it!
CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE
TMC will have a rebuttle of the pro’s and con’s of a trolley system in the City of Riverside, and will be able to do it for no cost to the taxpayer!
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DETAILS OF THE MEETING
TROLLEY UPDATE: TMC WAS TOLD THAT AT THE MEETING, THE TABLES HAD NAME CARDS OF ALL THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR WITH THE TROLLEY STUDY PACKETS. NOT ONE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL SHOWED, EVEN THE MAYOR DIDN’T SHOW AND IT’S HIS PROJECT! IT APPEARS ANOTHER $237K IN STATE GRANT MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN..
THE RIVERSIDE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE UPCOMING SPECIAL AUDIT OF THE SEWER FUNDS. THIS WILL BE THIS TUESDAY JULY 29TH AT 6:00PM IN THE MAYOR’S CEREMONIAL ROOM ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY NEIL OKAZAKI LEAVES CITY OF RIVERSIDE. Sources have said that Neil Okazaki would be leaving his position, possible going to the County. This occurred the day of the Soubirious hearing. Was this hearing the turning point for Okazaki? Weeks before, City Attorney Greg Priamos said he was leaving for a position with the County as well. What seems evident is that no one wants to go down with the ship!
SORRY EVERYBODY! WE STILL HAVE MORE ON COUNCILMAN SOUBIROUS’S INVESTIGATION THAT WILL BE A COMPLETE SHOCKER! STAY TUNED FOR MORE AS RIVER CITY TURNS!
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS, WARD 3 COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS, WARD 4
Tonight’s explosive Council meeting regarding the rate increases to residents, ended with questions regarding bonds, loans, advances and debt service to the taxpayer. The new rate hikes were passed by Council, to replace the old. According to Councilman Davis, this rate hike will be a 302% increase since the year 2008. Councilman Davis also made a motion to bring California State Controller John Chiang do to a forensic audit of the sewer. Councilman Soubirous asked for same, but to include water and electric. If we are to increase the rates we need to bring trust back to the community by having a independent entity evaluate the taxpayer’s books over the years. Davis questioned CFO Brent Mason regarding posting dates and why some entries were backdated. The rest of Council and Mayor Bailey were visually disturbed and shaken by this call. TMC was right, the ones who went for the rate increase were, Councilman Mike Gardner, Chris Mac Arthur, Steve Adams and Jim Perry. When Councilman Jim Perry asked for a seperation of the issues, between the rate increases and forensic audit, the audience asked for a recall! The audience was shocked at Perry’s position not to support the issue of a forensic audit, but he called for a workshop on it. Councilman Soubirous and Davis can call the State Controller directly requesting an audit without the approval of council or a workshop! Councilman Andy Melendrez was absent from council, was he glad he was? What does this mean for the City of Riverside? The end of corruption? What is the Council afraid of finding? A Swiss Bank Account? It is evident that Davis and Soubirous find the atmosphere in the City of Riverside necessary to ask the State Controller to come in and bring closure for the taxpayer. What is the nervousness of those council people who are against this. Colusion? Why wouldn’t they see this as a win, win situation for the taxpayer? Especially newcomer, Councilman Jim Perry? Why would he attempt to divert attention to a prominent and relative issue somewhere else? Did they get to him? Coucilman Chris Mac Arthur asked the question to the City Attorney if it was proper to request the services of John Chiang’s office. It was obvious that City Attorney Greg Priamos did not want an audit, when he told council that they should take CFO Mason’s word that the books are in order, but left to their discretion if an outside auditing should be requested. This in lieu of a letter by an Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Member, Keith Nelson, Ph.D, calling a local City of Riverside hired attorney Doug Smith a liar, and questioning the unscrupulous behavior of City Attorney Greg Priamos! Why would anybody rely on the word of our City Attorney Greg Priamos, he has a track record of misinforming council.
STATE CONTROLLER, JOHN CHIANG
FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SIMPSON: SCOTT RESPONDS TO RIVERSIDE’S SEWER RATE HIKES:
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Some times what the city does not tell you is most important to the decision to raise the sewer rates.
1. Hudson changed the financing stategy for sewer capital improvements away from voter approval of municipal bonds or property assessments or special taxes. These would show up on your property tax billing. We are still paying off capital improvement bonds from pre-Hudson era on our property tax bill. Bonds in general are a 30 year repayment obligation. Hudson took away your right to vote No on ever increasing debt which is what is driving these outrageous sewer rate increases.
2. Remember last night, staff kept saying the sixteen year period of no rate increases was pre-Hudson and bonds were financed differently. The truth is the operation and maintenance of the waste water facillity doesn’t out pace the cost of living. Especiallysince we experienced a recession that left 25% of our homes and businesses empty and thus not Flushing. This is the real reason they kept saying they have less waste water to treat along with less customer revenue.
3. California courts have ruled that rates fees and charges for sewer sevices supplied to the land are only for the purpose of recovering the annual cost of operation and maintenance. The rates are to be set annually utilizing the accounting records of the prior fiscal year. The courts said, this is the true Variable cost of the sewer service.
4. California courts also say that Fixed costs and Capital improvement cost and infrastructure replacement costs are not to be included in the sewer rates, fees and charges. They (fixed costs) must be a separate charge on the bill. They have also emphasized that capital costs are only lawfully recovered by voter approved municipal bonds, voter approved property assessments and/or voter approved special taxes. All of which will be collected on your property tax bill. The court specifically prohibited the inclusion of debt service in rates, fees and charges.
5. The courts also said that all customers pay the same rate for the same service to their property. This includes tax-exempt educational customers and all governmental agencies recieving the service.
6. The courts have also ruled that You as the indiviual property owner/renter recieving sewer services provided by a municipality can only be charged rates, fees and charges that do not exceed the actual (variable) cost of providing the service to your property. This means the city must individually determine the (variable) cost of the service you impose upon them.
7. Finally, our courts have ruled that when a municipality enters into a new instrument of debt of any kind, this act automatically creates a new demand for new tax revenue which must be approved by the voters before the debt is entered into.
– Scott Simpson
WAS FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON TO BLAME FOR THE SEWER WOES?
It is appearing that much of the problems that the City of Riverside is experiencing may be due to former City Manager Brad Hudson. When Brad was City Manager for the City of Riverside TMC asked for a forensic audit of the taxpayer utility books, but he just would hide behind the computer, as our City Attorney Greg Priamos currently does.
All this activity was in lieu of both Councilman Davis and Councilman Soubirous being investigated for complaints, of which we are not really sure of. We don’t know who the accusers are and why the complaints were filed. We know that Councilman and Congressional Candidate Steve Adams signed both contracts with the same law first to initiate the investigation. Incidently, these contracts were signed at the the City Manager’s cap of $49,000.00, anything over $50,000.00 must go to council for approval. Are we looking at the origins of a conspiracy?
We do know that there has been friction with these two council members with the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, City Manager Scott Barber, City Attorney Greg Priamos and possibly some of the Council members, when pertinent questions were asked and not answered to the desires of the council.
Former City Manager Brad Hudson hired City Manager Scott Barber and Chief of Police Sergio Diaz. Councilman Steve Adams and Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey were supporters of Hudson.
HERE’S ONE FOR RIVERSIDE POLICE CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ, WHO WE FIND THREATENING LOCAL ELECTS AND POLITICAL CANDIDATES! There are many instances of outburst and threats by this individual who formerly worked for the Los Angeles Police Department. Questions abound on his qualification, not only by TMC but by the residents of the City of Riverside which have not been addressed by those at City Hall.
TMC did a story back in June 2011 regarding Costa Mesa Police Chief Steven Stavely with his impressions of City Council.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
UPDATE: 11/02/2012: ACCORDING TO CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS RESPONSE STATEMENT REGARDING THE ARREST OF PUBLIC SPEAKER KAREN WRIGHT WHEN ASKED TO RESPOND. HIS RESPONSE, WAS “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILIGE”, MEANING THAT IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, HE IS REPRESENTING SOMEONE OTHER THATN HIMSELF. TECHNICALLY THIS WOULD BE THE MAYOR AND/OR COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL DENIES KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, DID PRIAMOS’S ORDERS OR DIRECTIVES THEN CAME FROM THE MAYOR? WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN WE FIRST PRACTICE TO DECEIVE..
UPDATE: 11/01/2012: OFFICER SAHAGUN’S POLICE REPORT SUGGEST THAT WRIGHT WAS SINGLED OUT BY CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS IF HE IN FACT ACTED ALONE. PRIAMOS’S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION UP ON NOVEMBER 13, 2012.. In this article, Councilman Gardner continues to amaze the intelligent community by standing by his rendition of events in the course of Ms. Wright. The officer took her elbow as if to guide her away from the lectern; he didn’t grab her or throw her to the floor, Gardner said. It appeared she sat down on the floor or lost her balance and fell. When will the lying end, is this what the constiuents “have to put up with?” Ooops, I believe I’ve heard this comment before..
Yes, Coucilman Gardner, that’s exactly what we saw, gently taking her elbow as to guide her away, possibly to help her find her way back to her seat, afterall she is disabled…then suddenly, she decided to sit on the floor, possibly just to relax a minute… Incidently, Gardner had front seats on the dais for this grand event, and he called it as seen it. In another statement in the PE, Gardner emphatically seems to say that Priamos would not over step his authority without the go ahead from the mayor or council. I could certainly interpret this statement as meaning, no move can be made by the City Attorney without the Council or Mayor. Could we now say that Primos was the messenger, and therefore council and/or mayor knew about it? What ever the truth may be, Gardner has either lost touch, or is truly telling the truth regarding what actually happened. In telling the truth, Council and/or Mayor knew….Is a recall in order for those involved?
UPDATE: 10/31/2012: EVENING: THE QUESTION OF GOING ROGUE..
In the Press Enterprise, Loveridge said he did not know whether Priamos had a conversation with the Officer Nick Sahagun. Maintaining decorum is the call of elected officials, not city staff! He evidently went on to say that “I need to talk to Greg to find out what was said or not said.” Is Mayor Luv stating Priamos made this decision on his own. After all, according to former employees, Priamos has been known to call Council members “idiot’s” within his circle. So how do they expect anyone to follow the rules of decorum when they do not follow the rules themselves, further, even the laws of the State of California. Four weeks ago, City Attorney Gregory Priamos conducted a two hour ethics training course to the Council. But was this really a “Bonehead Course”, as Dan Berstein coined. Maybe there is an emphasis in “How not to get caught”. At any rate it is quite a surprise to the community knowing Priamos’s track record.
This is quite disturbing because we currently have a City Attorney who has decided to give a directive of enforcement upon a citizen via a police officer. If in fact, the directive was solely his decision, and not one to involve the Mayor, would he be consider “rogue?”
According to the PE, City Attorney Gregory Priamos appreared surprised that the police report was had been made public. Though he had yet to read the report, he stated that Officer Sahagun’s description of the conversation was inaccurate. He declined to elaborate further, and cited attorney-client privilege. Attorney-Client Privilege? We understand he is Privileged, but who’s the Attorney and who’s the Client Gregory? Technically, the taxpayer is the client and he, Priamos, the attorney on record to protect us.
Maybe just a another nervous search for syllables, or it could have been a little gas from a bad burrito.. But is City Attorney Greg Priamos basically calling Officer Nick Sahagun a “liar?” Again, while the Council and Mayor were stating that Ms. Wright was arrested for not obeying an officer, according to Officer Sahagun, that was not so.
Did the directive come from the Mayor? Two days after the arrest, a new so called protocol was implemented. This would now give authority to the meeting chair, being either the Mayor Pro Tem or the Mayor himself to give the order to remove someone from the podium. But these rules have already been in place, was this a scuffle to spin? Back in 2006, an 89 year old woman, Marjorie Von Pohle, was removed from the podium by the directive of a Mayor Pro Tem to an RPD Officer for exceeding the 3 minute rule. Ms. Wright is scheduled to appear in Superior Court on December 27, 2012. Some rumors down the information pipeline is “Allred.”
CHANNEL 11 NEWS: “SHE MUST HAVE GOTTEN UNDER SOMEBODY’S SKIN!”
It comes as a shock to TMC to see public speaking come to this. Other’s are telling me that I’m just naive, “this is Riverside”.. What a night, one disabled elderly female public speaker down and arrested, a second disabled elderly female skirted with the possibility of second taken down, then one Councilman’s Aide is seen by another female speaker with his middle finger across his face. This public speaker had just commented on the inappropriate behavior of this aide, especially toward females. Karen Wright, a 60 year old disabled public speaker icon, went over the three minute mark, approximately 16.8 seconds. Returning to her seat, she was met with one of Ronnie’s Bouncer’s. Midway from her seat, when she turned toward the council, she was pushed by the officer. When she arrived at her seat, she was getting some of her things, the officer inadvertently came from the right side, it appeared he wasn’t finished with her, and then grabbed her arm, turned it clockwise, whereby she could not nothing other than fall and and take her down to the floor, she fell seated, she then took her two hands to try to get up as she indicated, but was pushed by her right hand taken, then handcuffed. Not one, not two but three RPD officers surrounded her when she was on the floor. “Officer, you are making me naked.” she stated. A disgusting act of use of force, but Riverside has a track record of this, and a double standard when it comes to arrest. You might think this is Afghanistan or Iraq, unfortunately this is Riverside, specifically, regarding these current state of affairs, I must say, the City of Riverside.. So, if you live here, you msut exactly know what this blogger is talking about..
The first quickly came out of nowhere, as she turned after finishing her point after the three minute mark, she was met with officer, not regularly seen, who grabbed her and threw her to the floor as seen in the images. While the council just sat there stonefaced, as good leaders do. While one retired police officer, later stated to TMC who saw the video from home, “there was no reason for this officer to touch this person.” So again, why would this Mayor, this Mayor known as Mayor Ron Loveridge allow this? Later in City Council, Mayor Loveridge stated, “this is outrageous behavior”, when Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s Council Aide, Chuck Condur, used a derrogatory finger symbol toward public speaker Dvonne Pitruzzello during council sessions. Why didn’t the Mayor have the gumption to say the same? Did he enjoy this? Did he allow this for personal reasons against Wright, being approximately his last appearance as Mayor on the dais? If there is a story, let’s hear it, this is not the normal standard behavior of a RPD officer at City Council.. Give us your side anonymously at firstname.lastname@example.org
During this disgusting act of force, Councilwoman Nancy Hart, Councilman Steve Adams (also a former police officer), and Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey left their council seats and exited the dais. It appeared they themselve could not handle or stomach the scene. But non of these great leaders said, enough! This has to stop! A reflection of the leadership in Riverside. Well anyway, this is what happens if you talk a good 25 seconds after the 3 minute mark. You may find a couple of RPD on your back.. Being disabled that’s gotta hurt.. After this disruption by Ronnie’s Bouncers, she was later taken outside, released and issued a citation for “disruption of a public event.” The witnesses who were there were stating, “she was already returning to her seat!” RPD Officer you shouldn’t have done it, you’ve watched over the security of Council meetings before. This is behavior unlike you, were you briefed by Council, Mayor, City Execs, City Attorney or your superiors to do this, and target this specific public speaker? More information coming down the pipeline..
The Chief then called Ms. Wright a “a horrible person”, “your disrespectful” and “You hate the police!” At the time he also turned to then Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello and stated, “I don’t like her!” This all occurred in a public arena. Chief Diaz has yet to publicly apologize for, as Mayor Loveridger would say, “this is outrageous behavior!” Though Karen had the right to file an ethics complaint on this very issue, she chose at the time not do so. Chief Diaz should be thankful of this. Many are saying should we disband RPD? And just go with Riverside County Sheriff, would this make a difference?
Notice the empty seat behind above the left officer, Councilman and Mayoral Candidate Rusty Bailey left the dais, out of sight.. Some commenters on the Press Enterprise have begin coin Councilman and Mayoral Candidate… “Runaway Rusty.”
Wrong Councilman Davis, she picked her own self up according to the above video. Let’s not begin to spin the chain of events in order to defend you and the council bullies, that night, for not doing the right thing and stopping what occurred. You stated that the decision for this is defined by the RPD officer, and by “law” you cannot interfere with that. But now, new rules? “Police Officers will now be directed by the Mayor?” according to the the Press Enterprise. Now, elected officials can interfere with the actions of the Police Officers? But some Council members are saying, again, as an authority figures, and I disagree with that, that they cannot interfere with the judgement of a an RPD officer? You work for us, and we expect some aggregious behavior to be stopped by a police officer, but you are telling them you have no power. Our we living in a microcosm of a police state?
To the elected individuals on the dais, we’ve have not declared war..we only want transparency…
“At that time she also decided to sit down, on the floor, just outside the Dais entrance door and near her seat, with her hands not visible from my vantage point.”
Councilman Davis, you are wrong again, let me show how she ended up on the floor. You call us “crazy”, but at least we are not “liars.” This is how Ms. Wright decided to to sit down..of course, according to Councilman Paul Davis’s innacturate rendition of the Council events..
So what happens next, the Officer says we are done. So what happens with the legal process for Ms. Wright next? When the interrelationdships and interconnections with the City, City Attorney, the Riverside Judges, the District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, the Riverside Grand Jury, even unfortunately to the extent of the State of California Attorney General’s interrelationship? What will happen to this poor disabled 60 year old elderly woman? Well it’s already been decided if you live in Riverside. Some call it politics, some just have to accept it..
“All I was told was that you are given a certain amount of time to make statements to the council and she went over her time,” Lt. Guy Toussaint said. “She was asked to leave and she refused to do so.” Again wrong, Ms. Wright closed her comments and was on her way to her seat. But what the L.A. Times has right, is that this was all about the 3 minute time limit, which the City denies was a factor in her arrest. Many of the Councilpeople on the dais, who did nothing, and maintained they could not interfere with a police officer. So who’s in charge? Some on the dais, even said in some ways, that “she’d had it coming.” Other’s on the dais, who were criticized, said, “how come those citizens in the audience do nothing?” This is what we have, and you now begin to see the picture unfold before your eyes in relation to political conundrums withing the politics of the City of Riverside.
Again it didn’t stop there, another disabled individual on crutches …What is it with the City of Riverside and disabled females? What is it with leadership that doesn’t have the guts to lead and come out to say this is wrong. Is it easier say that the individuals are just “crazy?” Well Dvonne Pitruzzello said it best when she said, “I rather be called crazy, then to be a crook.” Well anyway this person below was on crutches and the same RPD officer started to walk down toward the podium again… Ren Holmstrum on crutches was subjected to a possible throwdown, regarding her issue of Riverside hospice, when she went over the three minute mark.. One of RPD officers was again on alert, walking down the isle again to take care of muni mafia business…
Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey seen with his head down in the video. Last week Councilman and Mayoral Candidate William “Rusty” Bailey, came to the TMC site to inadvertently download photos of his Mayoral opponent and former Riverside Councilman, Ed Adkison, of course without TMC’s permission. These were then sent city wide in a campaign mailer. Now RPD wants TMC’s photos of the Council Debacle…Many in the community, seeing this display of police are now afraid, who can we depend on when we cannot trust our own community police force? Who do we call when we cannot call our own police force for help? Questions some community constituents are asking. This is the same behavior community constituents have been talking about to their city leaders for years…
Other’s are asking the question if this was a set up.. Most often, RPD or Ronnie’s Bouncers are cordial, escorting the “3 minute violator” back to their seat. This time, the Mayor meant business, it was a throw down… Was this orchestrated and planned by the mayor, the puller of strings? As one reporter stated on Channel 11 News on 10/25/2012 “She must have gotten under somebody’s skin.” This because Ms. Wright goes to each and every council meeting to comment on issues, and is therefore well known..
“I want to live in a society that people can voice unpopular opinions because I know as result of that a society grows and matures,” – Hugh Hefner
It didn’t stop there, after Public Speaker Dvonne Pitruzzello spoke regarding Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s legislative aide, the allegation of Chuck Condor holding a knife to the throat of Bailey’s Council Aide, Mark Earley.
From the current contact in the mainstream media, much is being said, many questions asked, pieces of the puzzle that just don’t make sense, but the questions of why none of the City Council leadership said nothing, allowed the activity to happen, and simply found it acceptable.. again actions speak louder than words..
COUNCILMAN CHRIS MAC ARTHUR’S LEGISLATIVE AIDE CHUCK CONDOR SHOCKS COUNCIL MEETING!
The question to the council by Pitruzzello was, ” Why Condor wasn’t arrested, or a police report created by Bailey’s Aide, Mark Earley? We just don’t know..”Was this a concerted effort by City Hall to cover up the alleged altercation back in April 2012?” Regardless, it still didn’t stop there! As Former Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello walked toward the back of Council Chambers she was met from a distance, Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s Aide, Chuck Condor, placing the “middle finger” in front of his face toward Pitruzzello. Mrs. Pitruzzello interrupted the City Council to let them know just what happened. The following pics below taken at the time of the interruption. The shock was written all over Councilwoman Nancy Hart’s face. Officer Nick, again, one of Ronnie”s Bouncer’s pounced on the situation and begin to walk over toward Pitruzzello. She let Officer Nick know, “that’s who you need to arrest!” Referring to Mac Arthur’s Council Aide Chuck Condur. This is the one time TMC agrees with Mayor Luv when he stated, “this is outrageous behavior.” When a Council Aide can continually get away with derrogatory remarks and alleged actions, this is outrageous behavior.. This Public Council Meeting could not have been hotter…
But let’s not forget this is Riverside, Chuck Condor, may just get a monetary raise and become an elected official one day.. But many are asking the question, why does Councilman Chris Mac Arthur allow a person such as Chuck, who appears to be a loose cannnon, on his team? Another liability? Could revealers of Condur’s behavior now be in danger of retaliation by the City of Riverside Power House? Will have to ask Councilman Chris Mac Arthur who has protected his aide through thick and thin regardless of his derrogatory behavior. The question is, does the Community concur with this type of legislative aid behavior?
UPDATE:10/29/2012: A MONTAGE OF COMMENTERS COMMENTING ON THIS ISSUE REGARDING MS. KAREN WRIGHT FROM THE PE BEFORE THEY ARE DELETED…POSSIBLY BY SOME DIRECTIVE BY A CITY ELECT OR THE CHIEF OF POLICE HIMSELF…
Remember folks, you have to be in a bad mood as a citizen when you come to City Council Meetings when you know that you the taxpayer, are $4 billion in debt, and that you the taxpayer are responsible for it as a result of the elected officials who voted on these issues.
This is ridiculous. Going over the time limit is not a crime. I’m not a fan of Karen’s, but she had finished talking and was walking away from the podium. Someone has it in for her, and that’s not right. Terrible, terrible showing by the police, the mayor, and the council. -Kaptalism, commenter on the PE
This makes me SICK! Sooooo unjustified! This isn’t the last we have heard of this, believe it! A lawsuit will be forthcoming for SURE! So shameful! -Nettie Nettie Bobettie, commenter on the PE
Unbelievable~!!! They should be ashamed of themselves~!!!! – Alice Wersky Naranjo, commenter on the PE
AND THIS MORNINGWE ARE ON FOX NEWS. AREN’T WE GREAT? –Ron Rose, commenter on the PE
This is how it works at Casa Loveridge. You get three minutes to speak. If you’re kissing his butt, make it four and you can bring about 20 other people up to keep the love flowing longer. If you’re a guy criticizing, he starts to cut in and the hand goes up at about 2:45 into your comment and its purpose is to try to distract you into disagreeing with him over your time is up until it’s up and you don’t talk about your original topic. If you’re a woman, alas the infamous hand goes up at about 2:30. Bring a timer and time the speakers and the Loveridge hand wave yourself a couple times. I’ve done it myself. Very illuminating. The county board of supervisors have used the same tactics for years and rumor has it he wants Tavaglione’s seat if that guy wins the congressional race. So maybe he’s practicing for the bigger stage? If he doesn’t like what you’re saying, apparently…well there’s that too. – Mary Shelton, commenter on the PE.
The cop was not timing her I would bet. He was instructed to do as he did when the time-up signal was given. Minor petty politicians begin to think they are Lords. -James Overturf, commenter on the PE.
Too bad we don’t limit politicians to three minutes of speaking. – BJ Clinton, commenter on the PE.
Although I haven’t lived in Riverside since my Divorce in 2003, I still follow the news. Here are my thoughts:Everyone has a right to voice their opinion in a Public Forum. Time limits are made to provide equal time for all and show some dignity and respect for the Counsel and “Elected Officials” of the Counsel during such meetings. Three (3) minutes may not be enough for some however, if you come prepared to make your point clear and brief, three (3) is “normally” plenty of time. Handcuffing anyone with a strong opinion should not be the norm. This lady was no threat to the counsel or anyone else. The lady only spoke too long. Handcuffs would not have been my first choice to resolve the issue. BAD CALL… Counsel BAD CALL… Riverside Cops -Roy Robinson, commenter on the PE.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM