MARK MAYERHOFF (CLICK TO ENLARGE)
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!
The following is a personal statement made by Councilman Paul Davis in reference to his investigation and submitted to Thirty Miles.
Some telling excerpts are as follows:
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:
We asked the question if Scott Barber should have been fired a long time ago. First is he qualified for the job of City Manager? Having a Thespian Degree? Just back in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza.
CM Scott Barber Sorry, CM Scott Barber
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..
CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT COMPLAINT HEARING BETWEEN FORMER EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER AND JUSTIN SCOTT COE CANCELED FOR FRIDAY JULY 25TH, 2014 FOR FLAWS IN THE PROCESS! MORE TO COME. DOES THIS MEAN ALL PRIOR COMPLAINTS NEED TO BE REHEARD? TMC THINKS SO!
JUSTIN SCOTT COE
Board Member, Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., Inland Regional Board of Trustees, who also served a member of the City’s Adjudicating Body whenever an alleged violation of the City’s Code of Ethics, responded in this letter to Councilman Mike Soubirous regarding his concerns with the behavior and involvement of City Attorney Greg Priamos and outside legal, hired by the city, local Riverside attorney Doug Smith. In fact, Doctor Keith J. Nelson calls Attorney Douglas Smith a “Liar” in the above letter. This is the kind of corruption we have come to in the underbelly of the City of Riverside, and it is being taking notice locally, but world wide. Thirty Miles of Corruption has being receiving hits from all over the world as you can see from it’s data banks.
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 you Councilperson. In my ward it is Councilman Mike Gardner.
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
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
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 ONE TWO 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