Posts Tagged ‘city manager scott barber’

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

PDone     PDtwo     PDthree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL LETTER SENT TO ATTORNEY MARK MAYERHOFF, OF LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE

MARKMEYEROFF

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,
Paul Davis
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:

Meyerhoffletterredactionsone copy     Meyerhoffletterredactionstwo

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!

invest417

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL UNREDACTED INVESTIGATION AGAINST COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS

The following is a personal statement made by Councilman Paul Davis in reference to his investigation and submitted to Thirty Miles.

PSDAVISone     PSDAVIStwo     PSDAVISthree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DAVIS PERSONAL STATEMENT ON THIS INVESTIGATION

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.
Paul Davis
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:

erratta

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL PAUL DAVIS TRANSCRIPT WITH ERRATA SHEET

We did a story on Ol’Scotty back when he intended to “Ferret” out a problem

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.

06clapper-articleInline           sb

      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..

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

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!

337062249

JUSTIN SCOTT COE

WAS THIS CANCELATION ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT KEITH NELSON HAD TO SAY? AND CALLING THE HIRED ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY A LIAR?

letterone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE LETTER FROM KEITH J. NELSON TO SOUBIROIUS

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.

1493020-327972687

RIVERSIDE ATTORNEY HIRED BY CITY OF RIVERSIDE, DOUGLAS  SMITH

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.

memo                     ordinan

   CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM                            WATER RESTRICTION ORDINANCE

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.

The Faux Drought continues with more City propaganda regarding  water usage!  New article by Alicia Robinson in the Press Enterprise addressing the city’s position regarding water conservation.

FROM THE DESK OF SCOTT SIMPSON: SCOTT RESPONDS TO RIVERSIDE’S FAUX DROUGHT AND THE DATA AND ARTICLE IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE: REFERRING TO PE ARTICLE: DROUGHT GROUNDWATER AT RECORD LOW:

waterSplash

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!

Train_around_the_Christmas_tree FOUR          streetcar5 copy6

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!

meetingtrollyjuly2014

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.  

photo

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!

 FUROR ENGULFS CHICAGO’S RED LIGHT SCAMERA CAMERA SYSTEM!  You’ll thank those that voted to remove our cameras here in Riversider sooner or later.

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

brandrifffinding2

CLICK IMAGE OF LETTER TO ENLARGE

According to the letter signed off by Assistant City Manager Deanna Lorson, John Brandriff’s complaint was valid.  Chief of Police Sergio Diaz was found to be guilty of “Discourtesy”.  Well yes, we thought it was more of being a “Threat.”  Remember, Diaz was threatening Brandriff’s political career, and for good measure, he went on to question Brandriff’s manhood!   Which these actions seem to be very different from the terms “misconduct” or “poor service.”   The actual finding states, that the department member committed all or part of the alleged acts of misconduct or poor service.  Sorry this just doesn’t seem to describe the threat to end one’s political career or the justification to tell Brandriff that he should grow some balls and talk to him.  Should we add professionalism to this?  It just goes on to sound as a simple man, with a badge, a gun, power, ego and a preoccupation with men’s balls.  Is this just another L.A. West Side story?  The next question is how CM Scott Barber will handle this case.  Remember, the Chief does not take criticism well, according to many in the community that have dealt with him.  Will this be a slap on the wrist, a write up or a course in Anger management?

diaz

Did I get that right Serge…What? Was that a thumbs up?

REMEMBERING THOSE THIS JUNE 6 WHO FOUGHT ON THE SHORES OF NORMANDY, FRANCE IN 1944:

021DDAY_468x309

AMERICAN CEMETERY NORMANDY, FRANCE

american-cemetery-normandy

CITY RIVERSIDE SUES REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO BLOCK LEGAL MARIJUANA BALLOT MEASURE!  AS IF THE CITY HAS THE MONEY TO DO SO…

According to the Press Enterprise, of which I believe TMC is blocked from the PE for some reason from commenting…  At the direction of the Riverside City Council a lawsuit was filed to block the Registrar of Voters office from placing a legal marijuana initiative on the ballot!  But is this really legal, the basis of the City’s argument is that it is illegal.  Okay I give you that, according to Federal Law Marijuana is in a CI classification under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), therefore marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value.  Yes Marijuana is illegal according to Federal Law, but so is Illegal Immigration, where are they on that stand?  Doctors may not “prescribe” marijuana for medical use under federal law, though they can “recommend” its use under the First Amendment.  But why does are little ol City Attorney Greg Priamos feel he can go out of his jurisdiction to pull a legal block, which in essence is a Federal issue?  Yes, this is a federal issue and Priamos should know that, and call the Feds to take over.  The Feds in general are currently taking a back seat on the marijuana issue.  Just the fact that Priamos thinks that he can put an end to the legal voting process, is at least, goes against everything in which this country was built on.  Blocking the will of the people is a very dangerous position to take regarding those in City Council to take.  This leads to the question of what other voting issues have the City gone against in favor of their own agenda.  One comes to mind, the use of taxpayer monies for Yes on Measure A campaign.  Was that a Federal issue also?  Now we are getting somewhere.  Greg, you don’t own this City, State or Country, quit spending taxpayer monies on frivolous law suits when the City is having difficulty paying their debt service.

untitled

City Attorney, Gregory Priamos

Priamos should also have know that it is illegal to enter into outside legal help without contracts, also for illegal water monies transferred in violation of Proposition 218, for bond fraud, for redevelopment money improprieties, for faulty legal advice to counsel, for the code rehab property scam, for using taxpayer monies to pay for parties etc. etc.

In a time when the City of Riverside is having difficulty paying it’s debt service, thanks to former City Manager Brad Hudson, this initiative would tax and regulate a small number of dispensaries within the City.  Tax money gained from the sale can help the city with it’s debt service, instead of attempting to increase the residents utility rates again, and again.  This certainly is a reflection of how our City views it’s voting constituents.

HYATT OWNER METRO RIVERSIDE FILES CHAPTER 11 TO CIRCUMVENT THE CITY’S FORECLOSURE PROCESS!  The City of Riverside filed foreclosure proceeding on the newly constructed Hyatt Hotel.  Originally the hotel was built by money loaned to Sivash Barmand, who owned the San Francisco based company, Metro Pacific properties, to the tune of approximately $20 million. Barmand, who does business in the City of Riverside as MetroRiverside, defaulted on their agreement by allowing their reserve fund fall below the required balance.  This is just the beginning, as a cascade of surprises unveils itself as a result of Mayor Bailey’s moral compass, former City Manager Brad Hudson.  Not long ago the Hyatt was in court claiming the City was attempting to “extort” them!  What now Councilman Mike Gardner, this was on your watch!  This was our story back in October of 2012.

UPDATE: 10/26/2012:  THE DEVELOPER OF THE HILTON TO SUE THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE..  WITHIN THE CONTRACT, IF THE DEVELOPER DEFAULTS, THE CITY IS NOW IN THE “HOTEL BUSINESS.”  FOR THIS TRANSACTION, TWO FIRESTATIONS AND TWO LIBRARIES ARE USED AS COLLATERAL.. 

(HYATT PIC COURTESY OF TRIP ADVISOR)

IS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE INVOLVED IN “EXTORTION” AS CLAIMED BY HYATT DEVELOPER?

According to the Press Enterprise, a story broke by City Council Gadlflies almost a year ago, no one listened, because they may have thought they were simply “crazy” made mention to the contract between the City of Riverside and the Developer Siavash Barmand.  The other claim states that the city “extorted” money from MetroRiverside by improperly changing the obligations to build public improvements, and by delaying approval of designs for the improvements. The claims say the developer lost money because of the design approval delay and the convention center closure.

I’m surprised the City didn’t code it to death, then rehab it at a profit.

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

cprcletter

CPRC Letter

TMC was notified earlier today that John Brandriff’s complaint against Chief of Police Sergio Diaz has forwarded to the Community Police Review Commission (CPRC) for review.  We believe that this is the first time we’ve ever heard of a Human Resources complaint being directed for review by the City Manager.  Usually, the Human Resource Department in conjunction with City Manager would make a decision based on the merits of the complaint.  Would this be a way for City Manager Scott Barber not to deal with such a “hot” issue?  In past posting on TMC, we stated that the investigator who reviewed the complaint found that both Brandriff’s and Diaz’s story which unfolded that evening, were consistent.  This case will be reviewed tomorrow Tuesday, May 28, 2014 at 4:00pm in the Art Pick Council Chambers at City Hall.  The public is welcomed to attend.

HOW BAD IS CITY OF RIVERSIDE WATER?  ACCORDING TO THE DAILY FINANCE, NOT SO GOOD…CITY OF RIVERSIDE RATES NUMBER TWO.

waterSplash

According to Daily Finance, no so good, rating number two on a scale of one to ten.  City of Riverside Public Utilities which serves a population greater than 300,000 people, as many of you know already, we get all or most of our water from ground water sources within the San Bernardino basin.  Regulators found 15 chemicals that exceeded health guidelines and 1 that exceeded legal standards.  The article contends that since 2004, the water has almost consistently contained traces of bromoform (a form of trihalomethane), alpha particle activity and uranium, causing an unusually unhealthy water supply.  The article determination of unhealthy water were based on three criteria: 1. The percentages of chemicals found, 2. Total number of contaminants found, and 3. The most dangerous average level of a single pollutant.  We did a story on Riverside Water regarding contaminants such as hexavalent chromium contamination back in August of 2012.

According to the Murrieta Patch, they state that this article is “erroneous”, due to the fact that the test samples were derived from ground water sample or pre-treated water as opposed to tap water samples, which one would drink.

According to Scott Simpson, the city test as the well source and after the water treatment.  Not all wells have treatment systems directly connected.  Some wells don’t test “clean” but are blended into higher quality sources and then tested.  They could do tap water testing in different neighborhoods that are getting water from known sources and treatment equipment.  Averaging the system data can hide a high contaminant neighborhood from scrutiny.  You have to remember that they report only the passing test results.  If a test fails for a contaminant, they can retest.  If they consistently get failing retest they have to report to the state health department and put a notice of the test result in our monthly billing.

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.

My concern as I was reading the City of Riverside’s Annual Water Quality Report for 2012 was the high levels of Chromium VI in the water supply.  According to the report, the State of California’s Public Health Goal (PHG) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is 0.02 parts per billion (ppb).  The City of Riverside’s testing results are reporting an average of 2.2 ppb, while their reportable range is between 1.6 to 2.3 ppb!

rpuchromiumuvi

THIS LINK TO VIEW FINAL 2012 RPU WATER QUALITY ANNUAL REPORT

MAYOR MAKES AN EXCEPTION FOR SPEAKING OVER THE 3 MINUTE MARK: BY 3.04 MINUTES: MAYOR TO MAYOR OF COURSE.  QUESTION IS, WHO’S MAYOR?  At a March 18, 2014 City Council Meeting during public speaking, the Mayor went to thepodium, and began his 3 minutes.  When the 3 minutes were up, and the buzzard when off, an interesting cascade of event presented itself.  No one was arrested, but former Mayor Ron Loveridge went on to speak an additional 3.04 minutes. It now becomes obvious that we have a culture and leadership of elitist, who are self serving. self serving for those that fit the familial criteria in Riverside.

mayorluv3minutes

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE YOUTUBE VIDEO OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED.

MAYOR BAILEY: Oh, oh..…we sticking to 3 minutes per speaker this evening? (The mayor ask the former mayor the question, as if asking for permission).
FORMER MAYOR: We could, (Laughter from the crowd) this is my first and probably last time you see me at a council meeting, ahhh……
MAYOR BAILEY: I gotta stick to the three minutes per speaker, perhaps, put another speaker card in ..… (former mayor interrupts).
FORMER MAYOR LOVERIDGE: Naah…I don’t want to do that Rusty!  I did come.. particularly ..I did want to read a letter from my brother..he’s been my mentor in Viet Nam.. He fought in Vietnam.. He was a combat lieutenant in Da Nang, there were five people killed in his platoon. I would like to read to you a letter from my brother and then I will exit.. (Rusty interrupts).
MAYOR BAILEY: “I think we can accept that..” (Rusty at this point, makes a unique exception to the rule).
FORMER MAYOR LOVERIDGE: “Forty nine years ago….” (Mayor Loveridge continues on reading the letter for another 3:04 minutes.)

What kind of message does this send to the community?  Are there two categories of people who live in the City of Riverside?  Could we allege, the ones who have it, and those who don’t, and we treat them accordingly?  We go on to ask the question since, since there were two nonsensical arrest for two nonsensical events which will only cost the taxpayer a mint because of appears simple ego.  The first event was for going over the 3 minute rule for public speaker Karen Wright by seconds ending in her arrest, the case was dismissed, and the second, for applause clapping, which a Federal law suit has been filed for the later Attorney Letitia Pepper.  I would imagine the city may also expect one by the first.  Those who actually heard the report of a public speaker being arrested going over the 3 minute under Mayor Ron Loveridge, not only gained the attention at the local level, but gained attention within the international community.  The very person who felt he should be the exception.  We could only imagine what would have occurred if independent voice, Mayor Bailey stood his ground and call the next public speaker, without thanking the first, possibly leaving former Mayor Loveridge stoneface.  But this reflects on Mayor Loveridge who should have known the rules on public speaking with his experience level of over 19 years, but knowingly disregarded the rule that everyone must abide by, even allowing the arrest of one who allegedly violated it.  He certainly didn’t care about placing the current Mayor in this awkward position of endorsing the breaking of rule.  It’s a two way sword, Mayor Bailey now has a vote of no confidence in the community.  Power is a funny thing, he states he wants fairness, but treats the community differently and accordingly at his will.

Man apologizing on hands and kneesHOW DARE YOU STOP ME LIKE THAT, IN FRONT OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE,  JUST WAIT TILL I SPEAK WITH YOUR DAD, JUDGE BAILEY!!

WHAT PEOPLE DON’T GET..THIS IS RIVERSIDE..WE ARE AN ANOMALY IN THE WESTERN WORLD..

I know a lot of people who have letters from their brothers, and if this is an acceptable exception, I know they will ask for the same treatment as former Mayor Loveridge at the next City Council meeting.  This I can’t wait for, because I have a wonderful letter from my brother that I would like to read!

NEW DA PAUL ZELLERBACH POLITICAL MAILER SENT OUT BY THE COMMITTEE TO ELECT MIKE HESTRIN FOR DA:

ZMAY2014                               ZMAY2014TWO

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Zellerbach vs Hestrin

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE (ARTWORK BY DONALD GALLEGOS) THANK-YOU DON!

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 ONE TWO 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 (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”), 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

index  Brandrifflettertwo     cityletter   diazbw

UPDATE: 1:00PM: 05.23.2014: WE’VE JUST BEEN NOTIFIED THAT JOHN BRANDRIFF HAS SENT A REQUEST TO CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER AS TO A “FINDING” ON THE COMPLAINT, BE IT “FOUNDED”,” SUSTAINED” ETC.  BARBER HAS SENT A RESPONSE BACK TO BRANDRIFF, “YOU SHOULD ANTICIPATE BEING CONTACTED IN THIS REGARD SOON.”  INVESTIGATORS HAVE STATED THAT BOTH BRANDRIFF AND THE CHIEF’S STORY WERE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER.  With this said, we can come to the conclusion that the incident occurred as indicated.  With this in mind, we will keep you posted if new details arise regarding any disciplinary actions which may be handed down by the City Manager to the Chief.

“When a City employee with a gun and a badge makes these statements it is the worst kind of intimidation and bullying…”

John Brandriff, a Ward 7 Council candidate back in 2011 and who also served on the City’s Community Police Review Commission (CPRC), tells his story of his verbal exchange with Chief Sergio Diaz, which didn’t end copacetically.  As a result, a complaint was filed against Diaz, and sent to City Manager Scott Barber for review.  Below is that letter.

 

Brandrifflettertwo

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW JOHN BRANDRIFF’S COMPLAINT LETTER TO CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER

According to the complaint letter, Chief Diaz’s expression of disdain stemmed from public comments made at a CPRC meeting in February of this year.  At this meeting Brandriff expressed his disappointment of the Chiefs lack of participation in the Mental Health/Police forum that was conducted at Bobby Bonds Park.  The actual comment was taken from audio at the CPRC meeting, it is as follows:

..as I said before, hopefully you guys will get a better response from the Chief than the forum did.  There were probably 10 or 12 different organizations from all over this City, and from L.A. and out of the County.   And, he (Diaz) didn’t really deemed it necessary when invited, to come and offer up anything to the community.  It was was hugely disappointing for me.  I just thought that there was more community involvement than that..

After expressing this comment, Brandriff states he was “nodded” outside by Assistant Chief Vicino who expressed his concerns of the statement he just made.  Listen to the actual CPRC audio of the comment by clicking the below link, (comment begins approximately around the 20.00 minute mark).

CLICK THIS LINK TO HEAR THE ORIGINAL CPRC AUDIO OF BRANDRIFF COMMENTING ON ON CHIEF DIAZ’S LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE MENTAL HEALTH/ POLICE FORUM.

What happened next at the Fox Theater only surmised to Brandriff that the conversation he had with Vicino was shared with Diaz.  What you read next is verbatum from Brandriff’s complaint letter:

I would like to relay an incident that happened to me Sunday night March 9th 2014 at the Fox Theater.  My wife and I arrived with Councilmember Davis and his wife to attend the showing of “West Side Story”.  Shortly after going inside we saw the Chief of Police, Sergio Diaz, and proceeded to say hello.  Councilmember Davis was in front of me and talked to the Chief first. When I went to shake hands with the Chief he pulled me closer and stated that should I ever have any concerns about the way he runs his department that I “should grow some balls and talk to him”.  I responded that I thought discussing some of the issues would be a good idea and that if he had time next week we could get together, it was then that I realized the Chief was very agitated because his response was very abrupt and curt when he said “oh I’ll make the time”.  By this time the rest of my party was starting up the stairs to our seats and I asked Chief Diaz if there was a specific number or person to contact to arrange the meeting he then reached in his pocket, obviously angry and shoved his card at me while moving closer and said “If you have any more political aspirations don’t make an enemy out of me”.

The letter below is the response from City Manager Scot Barber to John Brandriff, which assured him that the Human Resource Department did a full investigation, and that Barber will take appropriate action in accordance with related rules and policies.

 CMResponse copy

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW LETTER SENT TO BRANDRIFF BY CITY MANAGER SCOTT BARBER

An isolated incident you would think?  Not quite, we are seeing a pattern of behavior that actually extends into the community.  As Brandriff stated, “…the kind of behavior you might expect in third world countries not in our City or our Country.”  Again, this is not an isolated incident, Ward 3 Councilman Mike Soubirious had a similar experience whereby the Chief appears to threaten his political career.  According to the PE, the whole thing seemed to begin with a series of emails sent out by Councilman Soubirous to his constituents concerns regarding vagrants and panhandlers.  The response from RPD was that “our hands are tied” or ‘there’s nothing we can do.”  Evidently, Soubirous states he didn’t send an email to Diaz, but the email was forwarded to Diaz by another councilman.  We are thinking here at TMC, could it have been Adams?  If so, would that have been a Brown Act violation we asked?  Incidently, another unamed councilman has been accused of violating the Brown Act, and a complaint filed submitted to the DA, we all know how that will end.  Regardless, that never seemed to stop Adams before.  In response, Diaz wrote back to Councilman Soubirous that no good can come from labeling dedicated public servants as “lazy.”  The next statement by Diaz seems to be on the political threatening side, Diaz states that, “it would be politically unwise to declare war on you cops.”  Already we get the feeling that trouble is a brewing.   We asked the question what kind of history does Diaz have in Los Angeles?  Why is a Chief of Police out threatening elects and candidates?  Why is he acting as some sort of rouge underworld boss shaking down and hard balling constituents asking questions and threatening those who have aspirations of running for office?  Difficult as it seems, Riverside has serious problems in RPD, and no one is minding the store when minding the store are the residents of Riverside.  Diaz was hired by former City Manager Brad Hudson, in which questions still abound on his creative ways of finding money for projects.  Would Diaz’s undisclosed behavior and actions within the City of Riverside be creating a “hostile work environment?”

There have been other incidents on record, one with public speaker Karen Wright when she spoke out at public comment on the naming of El Tequesquite Park to Bonaminio Park.  Another incident occurred with community activist Christina Duran, where she was seated next to County Supervisor Bob Buster who witnessed the whole Diaz exchange.  Another confrontation occurred with “Five Before Midnight” blogger Mary Shelton at a ACLU event.  At this event he (Diaz) confront Shelton, and ask the question, “What are you doing here? Who allowed you to come to this forum?”  An ACLU representative had to intervene to actually smooth over Diaz’s aggressive questioning.  Some are simply calling him a “drama queen.”  Many resident/taxpayers are asking the question of why he hasn’t been fired by City Manager Scott Barber? Is he not representing the interest of the taxpayer because he has obligations that superside the taxpaer? There are many more that, whom were asked not to be revealed, for fear of City and RPD retaliation, but we are even hearing of events occurring in Los Angeles which involve Diaz that are disturbing.  Again, this is the legacy of former City Manager Brad Hudson, the current City Attorney Gregory Priamos and the former Mayor Ron Loveridge.   Even TMC was drawn in to Diaz’s questionable behavior by a comment we made.  This email came from to us stating that Diaz wanted to meet with us, not to talk about how to make the community better, but because of a comment made.  The following is an email sent to TMC back in 2011.

diaz

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE EMAIL

Sorry, we had to redact to protect individuals from possible retaliation by RPD or other City Officials … after all as most residents understand, this is Riverside…

What Diaz doesn’t get, is that the Community of Riverside also felt slighted when he stated that some of the critics are “sitting at home eating Cheetos in their underwear.”  In addition, he stated in the PE, “It’s a challenging job,” Diaz told me. “It’s not a job for people who prefer to be in their mommy’s basement commenting on news stories.”  Well alrighty Chiefy, we get it… Yes Myrah, we see you signaling that the bag is empty!  Let’s break out a fresh bag of Cheetos.. By the way, was that underwear custom tailored?  Yes the Chief is very handsome and very married, please don’t use 911 to call him again!

071209_cheetos_chicks

But Diaz’s behavior might be the least of his worries, former Police Administrative Service Manager, Karen Aquino in a letter to California Attorney General claims misuse of funds through Diaz’s foundation.  http://www.riversidepolicefoundation.org  Some of the allegations Aquino makes in the letter is she states Assistant Police Chief  Chris Vicino ran the foundation on City time.  This my friend, if true is known as “time card fraud.”  She also alleges the city funds were directed toward the foundation, and a substantial amount of staff time was dedicated to the foundation at the expense of normal daily police operations.  The allegations of misuse of Police Asset Forfeiture monies was also addressed in this complaint.

danutaletterfrontpage

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL LETTER

Of course, the same law firm, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg and Clouse, who found no wrongdoing when former City Manager Brad Hudson hired them at a cost of $150K to investigate allegations of wrongdoing on himself, came to the same conclusion when they were hired to investigate allegations against Chief Diaz.  The City of Riverside can pull a Governor Chris Christie when it comes to investigating themselves, and misinform the taxpayers of Riverside that this is a valid investigation, but it’s all “smoke and mirrors.”  Since Police Asset Forfeiture monies are Federal monies, only the Department of Justice (DOJ) can justify and bring forth a legal determination.

“Respect for the community, respect for other officers, respect for ourselves is going to be the byword by which I will attempt to lead the city of Riverside over the next few years,” he said. “Out of respect comes every other good quality that we strive for in a police department and police officer.” - Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz

DIAZ

BELOW IS A QUOTE WHICH COULD BE FOUND ON THE COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION WEBSITE:

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”  — Benjamin Franklin

 So what we’ve seen, is a Chief or Police out of control.  He is obviously not community orientated, as he was originally hired to heal the city, whereby, he has only been confrontational, intimidating and threatening to the residents and citizens of the City of Riverside.  Even the RPD officers are questioning his abilities and qualifications.  After all, he was hired by a former City Manager who had a record of credit card fraud!  I believe it was still okay with the City of Riverside.  But if you have the same qualifications and challenge the city, you will be destroyed.

PEPPER FILES FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE!

JUST IN:6:00PM: ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER, WHO WAS ARRESTED FOR CLAPPING IN JUNE OF 2013 FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY RIVERSIDE!

According to a press release, former BB&K Attorney, Letitia Pepper files lawsuit against the City of Riverside  for the June 25, 2013 arrest and detainment.  Pepper was arrested for applauding at a City Council meeting last year.

PEPPER

According to Pepper’s attorney, Jason Thompson, said Mayor Bailey’s animus towards Ms.Pepper appeared to have grown after she wrote in defense of people, which the Mayor had “dressed-down” during the earlier June council meeting. In her letter written to him two weeks before she was arrested for applauding, Pepper addressed the Mayor’s approval of some people and regular attacks on others. During the earlier council meeting, video footage shows Mayor Bailey telling certain citizens they were not allowed to applaud. However, a review of the same footage shows Bailey regularly allowing applause by people he clearly favors. In her letter, Pepper referred to Mayor Bailey’s selective approval and disapproval of citizens writing that the city council had become “so emboldened that it thinks it can treat audience members differently because of who they are.” Pepper continued that approval based on whether a citizen agrees with the position of the Mayor or council members violates the First Amendment. No arrests or warnings for applause on issues Mayor Bailey supported or of people he favors were made during the June 11 or June 25 meetings.

pr

PRESS RELEASE City Sued for Arresting Lawyer Who Applauded During City Council Meetin (click link to view)

Pepper, who previously worked at Best, Best & Kreiger, a law firm that has represented multiple cities in lawsuits against seriously ill and disabled medical marijuana patients, began advocating on behalf of those citizens after she herself was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Papers filed in federal court by Pepper allege that anti-patient Riverside Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey was retaliating against Pepper in-part because of his long-time dislike for people prescribed medical marijuana and because Pepper had written a letter to him after he’d threatened citizens who applauded during a June 11 council meeting. According to Pepper’s attorney, Jason Thompson, Riverside has been one of the most aggressive opponents of medical marijuana in California. Thompson explained that, despite passage of the state’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act, in May, 2013, with the help of law firm Best, Best & Kreiger, the city prevailed against a group of patients forcing them to leave the City. After winning the decision against patients, Mayor Bailey announced the city had won a “major victory” in its fight against patients. At the same time, the city announced it was shutting-down all remaining patient collectives. Thompson said that although marijuana reduces the size of cancer tumors according to the federal government’s National Cancer Institute, the City has effectively prevented thousands of its disabled and seriously ill citizens from accessing medicine.

The lawsuit filed by Pepper seeks an order requiring the City to follow its own rules as well as seeks money damages. Calls to the Riverside City Attorney’s office and to Mayor Bailey were not returned.  More to come on the trials and tribulations of  “Clappergate!”  Click this link to view TMC’s story on the arrest of Letitia Pepper for the clapping incident.

clappergatejpec2014

THANKS TO DON GALLEGOS FOR HIS ARTWORK ABOVE (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

clapping-animated-240x180  Barack-Obama-Clapping-in-Front-of-American-Flags  post-28556-Heath-Ledger-Joker-Clapping-gi-fKX9  applause

WHAT ARE OTHERS THINKING ABOUT THIS CLAPPING INCIDENT?  IS CLAPPING A REAL PROBLEM IN RIVERSIDE?, VIEW THIS TMC STORY!

LaughingMonkey1

UPDATE: MAY 21, 2014: NEW PE STORY BY ALICIA ROBINSON: INVESTIGATIONS OF COUNCIL CLOUDED BY UNKNOWNS:  New article ask the question regarding the Soubirous and Davis investigation, as to what policies or procedure is guiding city officials.  The City has been vague and secretive of the inquisition regarding the complaint and who are behind the filing.

MS         Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

COUNCILMAN MIKE SOUBIROUS, WARD 3                           COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS, WARD 4

UPDATE: POSSIBLE FELONY CHARGES TO BE FILED AGAINST DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL ZELLERBACH FOR CAMPAIGN TAMPERING:

zellerbach

LET’S GET BEYOND THIS, SO I FU.KED UP!  I STILL NEED YOUR VOTE!

We actually knew there was something wrong with this guy, when we brought stacks of info to the “Z” himself, and his associate brought a file of TMC articles, which they wanted to know who was writing them.  Further, are Grand Jury complaint made against former Riverside Police Chief Russell Leach’s wife, Connie Leach, was squashed in the middle of interviews, and we were told the allegations were unfounded.  We know now we were not an isolated incident.  Why it was squashed, we don’t know.  Was there interference by the City of Riverside?  We don’t know.  Was there tampering?  We don’t know.  We could only speculate, and that is not good enough.  What we do know, is that we were made to feel as if we were the provocateur, just for asking the questions..  We found it quite remarkable, when Zellebach made his most telling statement to us, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?”  Why would someone tell us this?  We then asked the question, “How connected and obligated is he to City of Riverside Elected Council? To Judges? To the City Attorney? To the Grand Jury?  and possibly influencing the Grand Jury?  In November of 2011 we asked that question in a TMC posting of “TRIANGLE OF INFLUENCE.”

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 ONE TWO 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

 deep-blue-sky-with-clouds-800x368 copy

This was an article we posted back in May of 2012 when we requested all contracts for outside legal help by the City Attorney’s office.  There were no documents responsive!  This was recently brought to the forefront with a new article by Dan Bernstein from the Press Enterprise, “Riverside: The (Hidden) Cost of Business.”   Bernstein refers to all the non contractual outside legal services which are not documented, a hidden cost as he calls it, but not hidden to taxpayer monies.  One of the most striking documents we at TMC found a couple of years ago was one which Best, Best & Krieger had their own charge card, to charge the City of Riverside as they needed to for legal work rendered.  Charges to the tune in excess of six figures?

CorpCard    CCTWO    CCTHREE    CCFOUR    CCFIVE

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENTS OF CORPORATE CARD

 The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval.  The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts.  The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.

4-14-09 PRR 1 of 2 001                      4-14-09 PRR 2 of 2 001                     4-27-09 City response 001

CLICK ON ABOVE DOCUMENT IMAGES TO ENLARGE

sec702

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question then arose was because of Section 702 Eligilbility, powers and duties of the City Attorney, from the City of Riverside City Charter.   This section of the charter stated, “The City Council shall have control over all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney therein.”  We were told that state bar requires a lawyer to provide a contract for any work done for a client.  We believe that Section 702 makes all outside legal services require approval by the majority of the City Council.

With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber.  The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous.  The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval.  We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.

Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.”  We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent.  The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.

 Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.”  We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?”  If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals.  When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?”  How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies?  What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter?  A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.

We say this because of the circumstances.  We bring the incident which involved our current City Manager Scott Barber. Just 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.  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.

Or the time, which involved City Attorney Greg Priamos denying that he had anything to do with the command for the arrest of public speaker, Karen Wright.  Officer Sahagun was commanded by the City Attorney to arrest public speaker Karen Wright.  Then Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, this then implies that officer Sahagun is s liar.  Brian Smith, RPOA President states, “we call that a lie in the profession, and the State of California calls it lying in a police report a crime.”  So if it is in fact a lie, will Priamos prosecute Officer Sahagun for falsifying a police report?  To this day it remains unclear what Priamos meant by referring to the report as “inaccurate.”  In addition, has yet to give an explanation of what was actually said between himself and Officer Sahagun.  Again is City Attorney Greg Priamos a liar?

The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity?  What should be done about it?  Why isn’t anything being done about it now?”  It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.”  So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge?

MAY 2012 ORIGINAL TMC ARTICLE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING CONTRACTS!”

may2014two

It has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside.  What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.

According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated.   When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent.  According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record.  Therefore, non is required.  Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on?  This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading.  And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies.  You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture.  Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos.  But there was nothing to hide after allowing $159 million in illegal RDA loans to be approved by City Council, then rejected by the Finance Office for the State of California.  What would then be the result of his performance evaluation, which was being discussed in closed sessions Tuesday April 4, 2012, at City Council?  I’m sure, just as it went well for our former City Manager, this will go well..

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DENIAL LETTER

Above is a letter sent to Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos.  The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, ‘how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”?  What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer.  We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act.  As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract?  I would say not.  When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”?  Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer?  If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.”  One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside?   What is it between the two?  As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card?  It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

 And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more.  So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers?  It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost.  So who’s minding the store?  Inquiring taxpayers would like to know.  But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register.  Why? Quite possibly in their incestuous relationship that has grown over the years.

Such as the cozy arrangement between certain ex city of riverside employees or just BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees.  Conflict of interest?   The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, on their boards and committees are numerous.  Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership).  BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.  Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California.   In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach.  What a surprise, it’s signed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K.  Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”.  Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off…  Wish we could, but it gets better.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHOLE DOCUMENT

Then there is developer Mark Rubin’s connected liaison with the City of Riverside and the City’s alter ego, the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt the brazen display of a conflict of interest displayed and perpetrated by the City of Riverside in approving the Citrus Tower’s lease deal between Best, Best & Krieger, Developer Mark Rubin and the City of Riverside.  “Three peas in a pod?”  Is it at all possible that the BB&K deal was orchestrated and designed to provide a lease revenue stream for the bonds held on the Citrus Tower project?  Was BB&K involved in bond advice for the city?  Councilman Paul Davis first told colleagues he’d heard concerns about “the general perception of the gift of public funds and creating a monopoly” to benefit a private developer, but he ended by saying it was a moot point because the city already has signed a lease.  How long will the City of Riverside continue to terrorize the taxpayer with shear incompetence and their breach of fiduciary duty to protect the coffers of hard earned taxpayer monies by the City Attorney’s Office? Good questions for City Attorney Greg Priamos, who coicidently has attended two of my alma maters, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California.  A sad day for both university’s Gregory.  The question in the community are the ruthless expenditures within the City Attorney’s Office.  How much taxpayer money has been litigated out, or settled out as if it was your own, without any rational cognitive reasoning?  Or was it just for sport?  Or is the threat of litigation just a city tool used against the opposition for what is known in the business as “client control”?  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  TMC believes the later is mostly true at our expense.  Therefore why would the city litigate to the tune of 9 million, then lose, and then have to award out 250K in one documented case?  Of course, that wouldn’t happened because after all as taxpayers we should all believe what the city does is rational and in our best interest.  Well the truth of the fact is, that it did, and nothing was in our best interest.  Though he serves at the pleasure of the council, should the City Attorney answer rightfully to the employer, which would be “we the people”?  This I say because the council and mayor has failed to supervise the activities of the city attorney.  The failure is such that we must ask the question of what makes one believe the city attorney needs to incorporate police lights with all the bells and whistles in their pimped out city vehicle? Where did one lose the sight of whose money it really is?  TMC can’t answer that, but I’m sure there is a rational answer from our city attorney, as in the case with the ‘no contracts allowed with our best customer.’  It may not be right but it is an answer.  Ultimately, the council and mayor is responsible for the activities, failures and actions of the city attorney.  In an article in Cactus Thorns, the 29 Palms City Council questions the spending to their City Attorney,  and when they looked at public records, that was even a total shock.   In this continuing painful saga, one can hire BB&K to run a city attorney’s office.  Carte Blanche in Riverside. For a price, instant city attorney, as in this article in The Orange County Register?  In the City of Yorba Linda, for example, BB&K attorney Sonia Carvalho represented the city in the capacity of the City Attorney for over a decade.  Conflict of interest? 

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 ONE TWO 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

MS         Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

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.

johnchiang copy

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.

AuditRiv2

FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON

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.

TMC did a story on Christina Cortez, Whistleblower, back in December 2011, regarding bringing in the State Controller to look into the books of Montebello, California, which ended up being investigated by the FBI.

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.

Over the years, I have had city councils I thought were smart and thoughtful and ones who were less skilled. In every case, I know they were trying to do the right thing – I did not always agree, but clearly they were trying hard to improve the communities we all served. I have never, however, seen a council such as this one. They lack skill, training, education, knowledge, they fail to study (or at least learn). The majority either lies or are so lacking in the necessary skills that they actually believe the junk they say. They act as if they are owners of the business that is the municipal government of the City of Costa Mesa, but they are not, they are merely trustees of these public assets both human and physical and they fail in that role completely. They are in my opinion incompetent, unskilled and unethical.

UPDATE: MAY 21, 2014: NEW PE STORY BY ALICIA ROBINSON: INVESTIGATIONS OF COUNCIL CLOUDED BY UNKNOWNS:  New article ask the question regarding the Soubirous and Davis investigation, as to what policies or procedure is guiding city officials.  The City has been vague and secretive of the inquisition regarding the complaint and who are behind the filing.

    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 ONE TWO 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                                               

CREW

Now a second complaint alleging violation of City Charter 407 came in, this time it’s against Councilman Paul Davis.  Less than a week ago, a complaint came against Councilman Mike Soubirous.  It seems that the powers that be continue in their attempt to get back to a 7-0 team player vote.  We are assuming that the $16,000.00 Team Motivator/Psychologist isn’t working.  It’s clear by the information provided, that Davis was targeted at least on two facts, the work performance of the City Manager Scott Barber and what Davis said in testimony in the Raychele Sterling Case, which may not have made the City Attorney Greg Priamos look so good.

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS

When you view the overall pictorial of both Councilman, you cannot rule out a conspiratorial aspect by some of the usual suspects.  Just weeks ago Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason presented to City Council and spoke on how we will have a budget shortfall.  They continue to frivously spend tax payer monies in an effort to support their enormous egos and defend there inadvertent liabilities.  We must also ask the question, who are the players and what could they have to lose.

Just 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.  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.

 Ferret (Mustela putorius furo) on white background

Do we have a rogue staff?  City Attorney Greg Priamos gives the order to Officer Sahagun to arrest public speaker Karen Wright for going over the 3 minute mark, then lies about having any part of it, until exposed by Sahagun’s police report.  He calls the report inaccurate, then rescinds his comment when he receives a letter from the Police Officers Association resulting in an appology to the public at City Council.  But I regress, there’s a double standard regarding the 3 minute rule?  While former Mayor Ron Loveridge is allowed to go over the 3 minute mark and the buzzard turned off, and no arrest, why are others at a whim being arrested?  Even RUSD Mike Fine went over the 3 minute rule and it was simply okay.  So we target, retaliate and financially shake down those who practice their 1st amendment right of free speech in a public forum.  This is as off beaten as City Attorney Greg Priamos writing a book on ethics and giving a course in ethics to council.  Isn’t that “the pot calling the kettle black?”  Therefore, Priamos must have taken a course in governmental ethics somewhere in order to have the knowledge to provide it.  Where did Priamos take his course?  The laughs are never ending in the on going reality melodrama “As River City Turns.”

Responsible legal advice by our City Attorney is pertinent to decrease the liabilities of the taxpayer.  But we have seen, it may have been the case as in the Moreno Law Suite which addressed violations of Proposition 218 by the City of Riverside.  Further, the city’s approach to the campaign as in conflict of interest mailers in the Measure A campaign as well as the Measure V campaign, whereby taxpayer monies from the general fund are utilized, for what the city states are “informational purposes.”

measureajpg                                              MeasureV

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Though the Supreme Court stated that “a special edition created and sent to would-be voters, specifically because of the upcoming election,” is improper campaign activity.  I guess Priamos does what is necessary for the greater good of those who feed off city revenues.

Councilman Steve Adams recently spoke of witnessing undo influence within the RFP (Request For Proposal) process, which in turn a formal Ethics Complaint was made, which resulted in complaint being unfounded.  But when you look at the Ethics Complaint process, one can see that process is set up to result in a favorable finding for the defendant, just by default.  Was a city paid investigator hired to investigate this?  Do we pick and choose opportunistically when such activity becomes politically advisable.  Who would play the role of the consigliere, possibly someone with a law degree?  Will these complaints lead new Councilman Jim Perry taking this as a message to not divert course?

In both the Davis and Soubirous case, the PE reports that all emails have been requested in which referenced Barbers “employment status.”  This is telling; what happened between these two council people and the City Manager?  Another question, could it have been the connection between families which include Councilman Mac Arthur, Mayor Bailey and Albert Webb, of Webb Engineering?  Webb contracts were brought in the Raychele Sterling Case.

We certainly would now have to consider if these city employees filed they’re complaints on the they’re own volition, or did they have encouragement, or were they promised promotion?  Plausible denial by some of the usual suspects may give us more thought to a theoretical conspiracy in this matter.

The fact that Councilmen Soubirous and Davis called for a forensic audit for transparency and accountability, IS exactly why these two councilmen are being investigated. These two men ask the tough questions on our behalf. City Hall status-quo do not want a forensic audit. Councilmen MacArthur and Perry do not want a forensic audit. Councilmen Gardner and Adams appear to not want a forensic audit. Councilman Melendrez is undetermined. A forensic audit is what is needed at Riverside City Hall.  - Donald Herman Gallegos, Commenter on the PE

UPDATE: 05.05.2014: CALIFORNIA FRIENDS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CAUCUS OUTRAGED!

The Riverside African-American Community and Law Enforcement are outraged with Riverside NAACP President, Woody Rucker-Hughess over Riverside District Attorney Paul Zellerbach to receive the prestiges Drum Major Award May 14, 2014.  The California Friends of the African-American Caucus are asking Ms. Rucker-Hughes to rescind the award to Paul Zellerbach after he was caught twice removing campaign signs of his opponent Mike Hestrin last month.  President William Hutchinson of the Palm Springs Police Officer’s Association read a statement to the press which describes Zellerbach taking down signs, using a County vehicle and the assistance of a county employee, his retaliation after getting caught of the veteran law enforcement officer and his family.

08TUTUS_1117_G_dwb     Untitled-2     zellerback

Is it because Woody and Paul sing the same tune and dance the same steps? DA Mr. “Z” obviously is enjoying himself! Maybe we have something here folks, the dance styling”s of Woody & Paul…

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 ONE TWO 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

 

How do we not cry about the abuse of taxpayer monies… Even our forefathers would find this unacceptable..

In regards to the $35,000 to former Police Chief Russ Leach’s wife Connie Leach’s Multi Cultural Youth Festival, in an email Assistant Finance Director for the City of Riverside tried to explain it to Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding the expenditure of the $35,000.00 from Police Assett Forfeiture to the General Fund, but again we must reiterate, the DOJ has precise criteria for the use of asset forfeiture funds.

catlettemail

AFTWO    AFONE

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DONATIONS TO THE MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH ORGANIZATION FROM FORMER CHIEF RUSS LEACH TO HIS WIFE, CONNIE LEACH.

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY IS AS FOLLOWS.  IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED, PEOPLE INTERVIEWED, AND THE GRAND JURY SUBMITTED REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS, The Coup d’état, Vivian Moreno was the person focused for the indept informational interview.  The investigation was stopped suddenly, that interview never happened.  A letter to Mary Figueroa, Board of Trustees, stated that the investigation was unfounded.

frontcomplainGJ

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE CONNIE LEACH RIVERSIDE GRAND JURY COMPLAINT

UPDATE

The Police Asset Forfeiture Fund (Equitable Sharing) is a restricted fund and has very clear guidelines on its intended purpose.  Losing this fund couild be devastating to the Riverside Police Department.  I question Ms. Aquino’s motives.  Are you protecting the taxpayer? or is this personal?

In June of 2010 Dvonne P., Mary S. and Irma F. went to visit Ms. Aquino to question the use or misuse of the Police Asset Forfeiture (PAF) Fund.  Her comment at the time was there is not any abuse in this department.  Ms. Aquino directed them to look at Public Utilities.

On or about July 2010 we received the PAF Fund detailed accounting and audits from 2006 to 2009; 2010 was not available at the time, we now have 2010.  The misuse of the PAF Fund has been ongoing in the City of Riverside since I’ve began studying Equitable Sharing.  I took my concerns to the City Council, the District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, the Grand Jury and Councilman Paul Davis.  All of which disregarded our complaint.

AF

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE EXPENDITURES

Here are some of the questionable items we found that were paid from the fund:

1. Running gear for officers to compete in the Baker to Vegas run (tennis shoes)

2. Payments to Connie Leach, the then Police Chief’s wife

3. Payments to the Multi-Cultural Youth Festival- Connie Leach’s youth program.

4. Al Johnson Florist

5. A birthday cake

6. Canyon Crest Cleaners- Russell Leach had his uniform cleaned, couldn’t he pay his own $8.00?

7. Hotel visits to the Ritz Carlton, $400 a night for Leach and Gonzales.

8. Office furniture which totaled $100, 000.00

9. Dell Computers for the Magnolia Police Station, $200,000.00

10.  Lunch, lunch and more lunch for Leach and his friendemies.

Ms. Aquino knew over 3 years ago RPD management was misusing PAF Funds.  The incident with John De La Rosa, the Baker to Vegas Run, happened November 2009.  Why didn’t she alert the media then?  Why now?

When Russ Leach wanted to pay his wife, go out to lunch, get his uniform cleaned, buy a birthday cake and stay at the Ritz Carlton, this was acceptable.  When Vicino wants to go out to lunch and golfing it’s not acceptable.  When your job is safe and secure it’s acceptable to turn your head at the misuse of Police Assett Forfeiture Fund and say or do nothing.  When you’re placed on adminstrative leave it’s not acceptable to misuse these funds.  You cannot have it both ways Ms. Aquino.  Were you a willing partcipant or a victim?

I’m going to speculate what will be coming next from Ms. Aquino.  There will probably be a tort claim filed, including all the malfeasance in RPD.  It will surely contain all the bells and whistles which we’ve been saying for years.  There probably will be a multi-million dollar law suit against the taxpayers of the City of Riverside.  I will say this again, are you protecting the taxpayer or is this personal.

To be continued….

HUSH MONEY PART 2

WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS STORY TO THE FOREFRONT MAY 18, 2011 IN HU$H MONEY PART ONE..

Telling the story of how this all began is an important one in order to understand why I have made the very important decision to run for the position of Mayor, Dvonne Pitruzzello, for the City of Riverside.  Approximately two years ago I attended a city council meeting and a friend told me about the city manager and his $50,000.00 discretionary spending.  It seems that the City of Riverside’s then city manager Bradley J. Hudson had an open checkbook to spend our money with no council approval.  For those of you who know me, you also know that this would be something that I would find unacceptable. So I requested that the city council put a mechanism in place to not only track his spending but to have it reported and approved by the city council.  A quarterly reporting would suffice.  Alas, my curiosity got to me.  I wondered just how much Mr. Hudson had spent and even more, what had Mr. Hudson spent our money on.  Now the journey begins.

After sifting thorough thousands of pages of documents I kept finding reoccurring expenses.  Connie Leach, Ironwood Construction, Provider Food Service, etc., etc.,  Thus began my relationship with the California Public Records Act.  You see all documents, except attorney client privilege documents are public records and must be given to those who request these documents, for a fee or course.  I’ll save the details of the power of the public records request act for another posting.  My first public records request act was for several items that kept revealing themselves in Brad Hudson’s discretionary spending.  Over 200 million dollars in less than five years. WOW!  And our city council current and former gave Mr. Hudson a blank check to spend our money.  So how did this all happen, was Hudson qualified? or was he as rumored, just a shoe in by the Tavaglione family?

But onward, I was not able to conquer all of this information single handedly, no, I had help, a few  close friends that had been victims of the cities oppressive policies.  Many meals around the table and later it was decided that the Connie Leach expenditures were extremely suspicious.  Also take note that the amount of spending that had occurred was so disturbing I could not walk away.  Approximately 200 million dollars in less than 5 years, what kind of city council would allow this?  Now that’s a lot of tax money. We wanted to find out exactly why this, “Blank check of trust” was given to a man who had a criminal record, but was hired by the city council and mayor regardless.

Our quest had deepened and we began to get our feet wet investigating the expenditures of Connie Leach.  Our lead investigator on the case Vivian Moreno worked tirelessly for months to help us understand why the then police chief’s wife Connie Leach had been paid in excess of $600,00.00, as a consultant to the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council.  You see, when I, Dvonne Pitruzzello, was employed with the city and worked under Mayor Loveridge I did the same job for free.  As a part-time employee I assumed the duties associated with the Youth Advisory Council.  During my departure Connie Leach had approached the Mayor and stated that she would like to volunteer with children.  I thought, what a great opportunity for the youth council to have a high profile person giving credibility to their council.  It was to my dismay to find out less than a year after I left, Connie Leach began to receive payment(s) for her volunteer work.  Doubly dismayed because we already had in place a Youth Action Office where these duties should have been assumed by the director, not Mrs. Leach, to pay someone else to do the job was again, unacceptable.

On to what we found.  Contracts for over $300,000.00 and the remaining $300,000.00 were for various items paid for on behalf of the Youth Multicultural Festival, for which Mrs. Leach was a consultant also.  Connie Leach did have a business license on file with the City of Riverside, Impact Consulting, both she and her then husband Chief of Police Russell Leach signed the business tax license.  The question was, if Mrs. Leach collected donations from the community then why were these funds deposited into the general fund and not in a separate fund for specific expenditures for the Youth Multicultural Festival?  By the way Mrs. Leach’s contracts were paid from the Parks and Recreation budget, the Economic Development budget, Development Department, etc.  Depositing these funds properly would have been as simple as depositing them into the International Relations Council’s, non-profit account, Youth Multi-Cultural Festival, a perfect place for these donations.  Of course everything would have been on the up and up if this had occurred……Nevertheless, it did not happen.  When Mrs. Leach got paid for every taco she ever ate, and every cola she ever drank from Jack-in-the-Box, our suspicions grew ever greater.  We asked for every check and/or wire transfer that was distributed to Connie Leach from the City of Riverside, and here is what we found.

Connie Leach had been paid $35,000.00 from police asset forfeiture funds, these are extremely restricted federal funds and can only be used for the sole purpose of gang or drug intervention programs.  These funds under the supervision of her then police chief husband had been distributed to Connie Leach for her consulting fee as the advisor for the Youth Multicultural Festival.  A grand jury report had been filed, but funny it seems that the person most likely to be interviewed, Ms. Moreno who did all of the investigation was never interviewed.  Approximately two weeks after the grand jury served a subpoena on the City of Riverside for five years of police asset forfeiture records the complaint was dismissed, no reason given.  Wow, how did the grand jury read all of of those documents in such a short time frame?

Let’s move on.  Connie Leach was reimbursed for party hats from the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, we know how much students love these hats.  She also had several parties at her house to reward the students for their hard work with all kinds of fancy cheeses and appetizers, students can’t resist the delicious Danish havarti cheese, these were receipts from Ralph’s grocery store.  $300,00.00 dollars later, even though she only collected $100,00.00 in donations, our former CFO/Treasurer Paul Sundeen stated in a finance committee meeting that Connie Leach had done a great job and deserved every penny that we paid her.  Shortly thereafter, his bound contract to the City of Riverside was found to be illegal, and he then faded away into the darkness of the Riverside sunset.

CONTRACT 1: AGREEMENT DATE AUGUST 30, 2004: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES RIVERSIDE YOUTH COUNCIL: AUGUST 30, 2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005 HOURLY RATE $50/HR NOT TO EXCEED 20K

CONTRACT ONE

CONTRACT AMENDMENT 1: AGREEMENT DATE JULY 22, 2005 (AMENDMENT OF JULY 1,2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005/ WITH EXTENTION TO JUNE 30,2005 CONTRACT ) AMEND TO JULY 1, 2005 TO DECEMBER 31, 2005: INCREASE BY 5K TO TOTAL 25K (PAY $25/HR)

CONTRACT ONE AMENDMENT

CONTRACT 2:  AGREEMENT DATE JANUARY 9, 2006: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES APRIL 23, 2006 MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL JANUARY 9, 2006 TO MAY 1, 2006  (NOT TO EXCEED 15K)

CONTRACT TWO

CONTRACT AMENDMENT 2: AGREEMENT DATE FEBRUARY 8, 2006  (AMENDMENT OF JULY 1,2004 TO APRIL 1, 2005/ WITH EXTENTION TO DECEMBER 30,2005 CONTRACT ) AMEND FROM DECEMBER 31, 2005 TO JUNE30, 2006 INCREASE BY 25K TO A TOTAL OF 50K

CONTRACT TWO AMENDMENT

CONTRACT 3:  AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2006: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AS YOUTH COUNCIL ADVISOR JUNE 30, 2006 TO JUNE 30, 2007 NOT TO EXCEED  50K (PAYMENT MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)

CONTRACT THREE

CONTRACT 4: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2006:  CONSULTANT FOR APRIL 29, 2007 MULTICULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL : NOT TO EXCEED 35K (PAYMENTS MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)

CONTRACT FOUR

CONTRACT 5: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2007: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES FOR APRIL 27, 2008 MULTI CULTURAL YOUTH FESTIVAL: NOT TO EXCEED 42.5K (PAYMENTS MADE BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICE)

CONTRACT FIVE 

CONTRACT 6: AGREEMENT DATE JUNE 30, 2007: FOR PRO CONSULT SERVICES FOR YOUTH COUNCIL PROJECT: JULY 1, 2007 TO JUNE 30, 2008  HOURLY RATE $75/HR  NOT TO EXCEED 50K

 CONTRACT SIX

CONTRACT 7: AGREEMENT DATE MAY 5, 2008: FOR CONSULTANT SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE YOUTH COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 2008 TO MAY 16, 2008 HOURLY RATE $75/HR NOT TO EXCEEDD $9,750

CONTRACT SEVEN

In 2008, a PE news release on 05/07 stated she was resigning 05/16.  Connie Leach receives a contract for $9,750.00 on 05/08, in lieu that knowingly, the event would be canceled.  Regardless if the Council or Mayor knew, they are responsible legally and managerably, regardless of the actions of the City Attorney Gregory Priamos and Former City Manager Brad Hudson.    Well, regarding the DA, we get it he is a very busy man.. The Riverside Grand Jury…found no basis, during an incomplete investigation, while awaiting public records on asset forfeiture documents.  The City, the judges, the grand jury and the DA’s office simply found nothing responsive to the documents.  Zellerbach simply told us, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?”  Well we were hoping you know Mr. Zellerbach…afterall you are the Big Kahuna..  This leaves many questions of why was a blog site targeted as opposed to the questions, documents and facts brought forward to your office.  Questions of your association with the Grand Jury, City of Riverside officials, Judges etc.  Why Mr. Zellerbach was it important to your office that a file on Thirty Miles of Corruption was created?  Were you worried that your decision on the Karen Wright arrest could possibly change how the Riverside Police Officer’s Association would view you?

                               

CONNIE LEACH TIMELINE                       CONNIE LEACH PE ARTICLE

The bottom line is, in an article in the San Diego North County Times, San Diego Police said there was sufficient evidence to charge then City of Riverside Chief of Police Russ Leach with battery and they then fowarded the this case to the San Diego City Attorney’s Office for further investigation.

CONNIE SUES CITY OF SAN DIEGO

After all is said an done we find that Connie Leach now resides in the Carribean.   What secrets does Carribean Connie know regarding RPD, Police Asset Forfeiture and her prior employment with the City of Riverside and the activities of her Ex-Husband Chief Russell Leach?  How much did prior Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge know about all this?  Possibly plenty?

When brought to the attention of the Grand Jury, the item in question was squashed.  When brought to Big Kahuna himself, Paul Zellerbach, his assistant was more focused on who was behind the infamous blog site, Thirty Miles of Corruption.  They themselve had a file of copies of each and every article written.  When asked with the evidence brought forward to Paul, he only stated, “Is this bad business? Needless to say, our Grand Jury complaint was dismissed with out completely interviewing all the complainants under the watchful eye of Paul Zellerbach.

NEW PE ARTICLE REGARDING POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE AND RPD.  MORE COMING UP ON KAREN AQUINO AND NEW ACCUSATIONS REGARDING RPD.  POSSIBLY A LITTLE LATE MS. AQUINO? EVEN WHEN WE ASKED YOU FOR YOUR HELP?  DIDN’T YOU KNOW ALL ALONG?  YOU KEPT IT UNDER WRAPS SO LONG…WHY BRING IT OUT NOW MS. AQUINO?  TMC KNEW ALL ALONG…  GOOD LUCK ON THIS ONE DANUTA, WE WILL BE THERE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

AQUINO

Karen Aquino, Police Administrative Service Manager for RPD

…Aquino has always been a strong advocate for following the established rules and procedures for asset forfeitures, knowing that they have very specific purposes and that she would be the first person blamed if any findings were made in an audit…  – Attorney Danuta W. Tuszynska

danuta

Attorney Danuta W. Tuszynska

danutaletterfrontpage

CLICK LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE TUSZYNKA LETTER IN CARE OF AQUINO

These were Federal Funds and should have also been sent to the DOJ..  Okay Danuta, what now? How does this protect the taxpayer when your client may have possibly known all along the rules and law of Federal Asset Forfeiture?   Again is this Personal or in the Best Interest of the Taxpayer?  Or in the Best Interest of an Opportunity?  Again, contact TMC with your dirt at THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

TOUGH CALL FOR ONE LOCAL BUSINESS ON WARD 3 COUNCIL POSITION….

Realizing it is difficult decision to take a position on a Ward 3 Candidate, what’s a business to do when both candidates may have asked for support, we find this local business may have the answer…

IMG_0429

WHO SEEMS TO BE AGGRAVATED WITH EACH OTHER AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE EACH GONE…COMING SOON!  KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC.

Is Parks Director Ralph Nuñez really retiring at 54 years of age?  STAY TOONED TO TMC.

What is going on with the new Riverside Community College Culinary School on University and Market Street?

JUST FOR LAUGHS!

How important is golf in RPD culture?

vicino-diaz

Mr. D. could you wrap it up, I’ll be late for tee time..

vinciogolg

Yippee…made it!

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.  PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) 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 FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… 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 SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS!   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Stop Elder Abuse Sign

UPDATE:06.03.2013: IT WASN’T ENOUGH THAT BB&K ATTORNEY JACK CLARK ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF CITY HALL IN RECOGNITION OF RON LOVERIDGE..  NOW WE FIND JAMES ERICKSON, VICE CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THROUGH THE NAMING OF MAIN STREET UNDER THE NAME OF RON LOVERIDGE.  IN WHAT CAPACITY WE DO NOT KNOW.. LOVERIDGE LANE, RONNY’S STREET OR EVEN RONALD BOULEVARD.. 

Untitled-2 copy                       Untitled-3

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE:  ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

There is nothing more despicable than taking advantage and misinforming seniors.  Where is Ofelia Yeager on this issue, the Chairperson on the Yes on Measure A Campaign?  Why was she chosen to spearhead this issue?  Why was Mathew Webb of Webb Engineering, the Co-Chairperson christen to participate in this elusive endeavor?  Why would Webb Engineering have a master engineering contract with Municipal Water?  How does this affect Mathew Webb’s relationship with Councilman Chris Mac Arthur, are they cousins or just doing the Hanky Panky?    Or Mathew Webb’s association with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, stating he has known him for decades.  Is this all about keeping it in the family?  Does it dispute the fact that Webb Engineering recieved 13 Checks on the same day under former City Manager Brad Hudson’s discretionary account?  Where is the Council on this one, the Mayor and especially Steve Adams who has asspirations aspirations of being a Congressman?  This is only a reflection of how our City operates.  Every month the amount transferred goes up, it was $6.1 million now it is $6.7 million, probably because they are not allowed to transfer just yet.   But, what now appears to be covered by this transfer is everything that property taxes are suppose to cover.  In City Manager Scott Barber’s analysis of possible cuts if Measure A doesn’t pass could very well be considered a scheme, artiface or fabrication since it was simply based on projections.  Was this orchestrated and designed to attempt to mislead the voters?  The projections have no basis because they never had any accounting track record of expenditures to refer to, they don’t exist.  If no prior allocation records exist how does one extrapolate a true analytical projection?  According to the City’s October General Fund Forecast, the Mayor Bailey’s Office is overbudgeted by $116,100.00.  Instead of cutting his budget, he would rather cut Police and Fire?  Further, as indicate City Manager Scott Barber used the number of the adopted budget for the Mayor’s office to apply his 3.0% cut, which comes out to $22,000.00, therefore this amount would be cost applied to the 11.5% transfer.  The funny thing is that the number cannot be legitimatel verified because no accounting records of that number exist!  Every account that Barber utilizes applies the 3.0% in the same manner.  This is an example of how they are misinforming the public.

mayorsbudget             mayors budget

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question to be asking the City, and many are asking the question by the way, “why do they appear to be strong arming the community into a Yes vote on Measure A?”  From candidates, community groups, community services, city employees etc.  Is it that the City is threatening funding to these programs if a Yes vote is not supported?  Money always seems to talk, especially when it is not your own money to spend.

This is a flyer that was dispersed at the Janet Goeske Center which states what will happen to senior funding if they do not vote Yes on Measure A.  Is the City of Riverside strong arming residents with an iron fist of reason?  Or is it extorsion?  Afterall isn’t the Hyatt suing the City of Riverside on this issue?  Yes they are.  Demand answers!  Demand Transperancy! Demand Leadership!  Well…at least the first two, and the only way to do this is to show up at City Council and voice your opinions.

JGFLYER

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FLYER DISPERSED AT THE JANET GOESKE CENTER

In the last two utility bills you received;  you as a taxpayer have paid for the few rogue City Officials who felt it was necessary to spend your tax money to misinform you, further, to deny your constitutional right of reaching a balanced voting decision.  City Tax money was used to favor a “Yes” vote on Measure A.  This flyer states to go to the City of Riverside’s web site for more information. If you go the City of Riverside’s web site, what we have can be construed as a Yes on Measure A bonanza!    Another FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) violation?

PUMEASUREAOFUTILITYBILL

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHAT YOU PAID FOR, EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE!

According to Letitia Pepper, Riverside Attorney, the City is using city funds to promote Measure A, and to promote it with lies and propaganda — propaganda is “half-truths.”  She says to look at your May Riverside Public Utility bill, on the back ( the above image).  There’s a full page promoting the passage of Measure A.  This page includes the biggest of all lies:  “By re-affirming these previous voter actions, Measure A continues this funding [allegedly and impliedly only for for clean water programs], WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.” The real reason this issue MUST be submitted to the voters is not the self-serving settlement into which the City entered with the Moreno’s that required the City to submit the issue of the excess charges to the voters. The REAL reason the City is doing this is that since 1996, it has been illegal, under Prop. 218, for cities, incuding charter cities like Riverside, to charge more for water than the actual cost of providing it. To make such chares, cities had two years after Prop. 218 passed to submit them for a vote as taxes — and the City never did that until it got caught last year.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot of services!  The amount the City has indicated has gone from $6.1 million to $6.7 million.  If you are a taxpayer as I am, this transfer appears to be doing a better job of covering all expenses of city services than our property taxes.  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services, SRO’s (School Resource Officers), Maintaining Fairmont Park Lake, Low Income Lunch Programs, Powerwashing Downtown Streets, Installing Curbs and Gutters, Summer Camp Programs, Dealing with Abandoned Vehicles, Using Code Enforcement if your Landscaping doesn’t conform to the Politically Correct criteria of the City, Code Enforcement citations if you Overwater your landscaping, Code Enforcement citations if you have Trash exposed, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that you have Outdoor Storage, Code Enforcement citations if it appears that your property is contributing to storm drain contaminants and it goes on and on.  The storm drain fees don’t really help Riverside residents, but it contributes to Orange County Clean Water.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  The new advertisement on Measure A on your utility bill states cleaning storm drain catch basins and storm drains.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN           PAGE4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Is the City contemplating a triple tax by this above action?  Is the truth of the matter that the City is in need of paying upcoming bond obligations?  Would this be the real issue?

As indicated by Dan Berstein’s of the Press Enterprise new article, is this another Sleazy Campaign Mailer?  Rather than making cuts in their own back yard, the City of Riverside would like to punish residents that already have made cuts in their household with the fear of higher taxes, as indicated a couple of weeks ago by Councilman Steve Adams where he stated, “if Measure-A doesn’t pass, we have a change in the status quo, and we will have to raise your rates (referring to water) and increase your taxes.”

flash_1886

WELL LET’S DO A DRUM ROLL TO INCREASE TAXES; SHALL WE COUNCILMAN ADAMS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points, but this new mailer just received is from the City of Riverside, and it has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months the City has stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This four page City mailer shows that the language can be ultimately construed as a campaign publication endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen by the language and pictorial used, the tone, tenor and timing is there. Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) rules and regulations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds?  Elections Code § 8314(d) and Gov’t Code § 8314(d).

Gov’t Code § 8314 (a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Gov’t Code § 8314(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies, provided that (1) the informational activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

According to a new article by Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise, the Council knew of this piece, according to Councilman Mike Gardner, but didn’t discuss the content.  So who were the individuals or individual that approved and designed this mailer?  Well it appears it was within the City Attorney’s Office.  So, who approved the $23,777.00 for the cost of printing and mailing at taxpayer expense?  You would think if there was any inkling or sugestion of misappropriation of taxpayer funds that the council would have the descency to ask those obvious tough questions. This I say in lieu of City Attorney Gregory Priamos not returning Berstein’s calls. If it was approved by Priamos, it must be legal, right Greg?

Another editorial in the Press Enterprise, “Don’t use taxpayers’ monies for election fliers.”   Is the City of Riverside really a “Muni Mafia?”  How do they compare to San Bernardino? Or Moreno Valley?

The City continues to claim that these transfer monies are used for everything under the sun, and every week we have something new that it covers.  The reality is the City has no bonafide track record of accounting of any of these fund at anytime, this we see as Bernstein undercovered in reference to “library books.”  Remember folks, only tax money can be deposited into the General Fund.

I guess in the real realm of things why won’t District Attorney Paul Zellerbach act on this? Possibly, because of this rhetorical question: “Is it illegal or just bad business?”  Possibly all the above, but we won’t expect this office to react in reference to the oath of office you sworn to uphold….regardless, your track record indicates clearly, your answers and responses to local community inquiries.  What kind of message does this send to the community when the City itself doesn’t follow the letter of the law?  Our we a Banana Republic or an American City based on constitutional rights?

zellerbach

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

As of May 28, 2013 as indicated in the Press Enterprise, the “Yes on Measure A” campaign has contribution commitments which are in the neigborhood of $46,000.00, and the “No on Measure A” campaign has continues to maintain steady monetary commitments of $0.00

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

539110_506054042765037_303798518_n

COUNCILMAN ADAMS BRINGS HIS CITY VEHICLE IN FOR THE USUAL REPAIRS…

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 ONE TWO 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

jerry

“OKAY, ONE MORE TIME JOHN, YOU SAID THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DID WHAT”?

assettransmay2013

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL AUDITING REVIEW

State Controller John Chiang announced May 16, 2013 their completion of review of the assets transferred by the City of Riverside’s redevelopment agency (RDA) prior to its dissolution.  The review found that the RDA is not only in current possession of $30.45 million in real property that it no longer is legally entitled to hold, but that it inappropriately transferred another $64.25 million in real property to the City, which equals out to a mere $94.7 million.  In other words, the City of Riverside knowingly stole the properties prior to the dissolution date of June 28, 2011 for RDA, even though the State Controller John Chiang’s sent a letter with instructions.  Now in the case of the $64.25 million in properties illegally transferred, the City contends that the Title companies refuse to now change title back to the State.  Does the Title company sniff something illegal?  Well they didn’t seem to have a problem transfering the properties and giving title to the City.  But now the City contends that the problem with the transfer had something to do with title insurance.!  In case people didn’t know RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council.  This is John Chiangs letter dated April 20, 2012 which describes RDA dissolution as well as what assets in regards to property need to be transfered back.

johnchiangsletter

CLICK TO VIEW JOHN CHIANGS LETTER TO ALL CITIES

The law requires that all RDA assets transferred to a city, county or other public agency after January 1, 2011, must be returned to its successor agency, unless the assets were committed to a private third party by June 28 of that year.  It certainly appears that the City of Riverside thought differently on this issue, even though local watchdogs continued to warn them, but fell on deaf ears.  Some of the players at the time were former Mayor Ron Loveridge, former City Manager Brad Hudson and Chief Financial Officer/Assistant City Manager/Treasurer Paul Sundeen (Yes, he actually had three job titles).

According to an auditing review by State Controller John Chiang’s office, they determined that the State RDA successor agency is owed $94.7 million in properties.  The City of Riverside is ordered to transfer all properties back.  Now what you may not know is that the City Council was told that when the properties were transfered from Redevelopment before it resolved, it was an illegal action.  The proof we had was as follows.

TRANS

CLICK LINK TO VIEW TRANSFERRED PROPERTY DOCUMENT

So that didn’t help so we thought that the next action would be road trip, of course, Sacramento.  Do we have another Moreno Valley occurring in Riverside, will people go to jail on this one?  Why didn’t Councilperson Nancy Hart’s Monthly, Bi-Monthly, (Not sure), Finance Committee Meeting catch this?  Afterall they had the “experts.”  But two misinformed citizen of Riverside, Dvonne Pitruzzello and Vivian Moreno found this.  They went to City Hall and told them about this, the Council did nothing.  So two took a road trip to Sacramento to meet with the State Controller Office.  It appears that all the laws were not adhered to as we were assured by the City.

I asked my electeds questions about these properties along with other nice folks  in 2011 and they assured us along with the city management that everything was  done appropriately and by the book. They kind of implied we were liars and  troublemakers too but what was the truth? Why does the State Comptroller now  agree that the properties were inappropriately handled by the city and its RDA?  Are they liars and trouble makers too?  – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the P.E.

Riverside blew an elaborate shell game. Someone needs to do time for this lie.   – Ernie Tyler, Commenter on the P.E.

To date, the Controller has completed 46 reviews.  According to a Press Enterprise article in a statement released by City Manager Scott Barber stated that only $64,018 remains in dispute.  Well we don’t know of the intended purpose of the letter, if it was in fact to divert attention.
sixtyfour
We certainly know that $64 thousand is different from $64 million, which was the amount in question.  Further, what the City said is that the Title companies refused to go along with the city’s attempt to transfer ownership from the former redevelopment agency to the successor agency (a new agency created in care of the State to handle the dissolution of RDA assets).
In a statement released Thursday, May 16, State Controller John Chiang stated, “After decisions by the governor and Legislature to disband redevelopment, my office is working to make sure all remaining RDA assets, including those in Riverside, are used properly to retire debt and pay for critical local public services, such as education and public safety.”  In the Riverside audit, the controller’s office found the city’s former redevelopment agency transferred $142 million worth of property after January 2011.  Of that, about $64 million is out of compliance with the June 2011 law dissolving the agencies, the controller’s office reported.  The audit also said that Riverside’s former redevelopment agency still has $30.45 million in assets which have not been transferred?
TEN THOUSAND SHORT?
When Redevelopment was dissolved, the State of California mandated the creation of Successor Agencies, which would be at the local level in care of the State of California in order to handle assets of the debunked RDA.  The City in terms of ROPS, could request payments for RDA projects which legitimately followed Redevelopment Law.  The State Controller, John Chiang, saw that the City of Riverside was not lawfully in compliance again with Redevelopment Law.  In this case a new board was created of the usual suspects, now called the Successor Agency, while, in case people didn’t know, the original RDA (Redevelopment Agency) was operated and administered by the our City Council.

WHAT DOES A FORMER FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SAY: STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

save-r-vote-executive-director-t-755-20071117-1

Comment written in support of No on Measure A by former Finance Director (92-94), County of Riverside, Tom Courbat :

I believe Measure A is illegal as it provides for some NON-WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS to vote on whether a portion of payments made by WATER DEPARTMENT CUSTOMERS shall be transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund of the City of Riverside. Since any city residents who do NOT receive water from the city have no vested interest (no “skin in the game” as it were), there should be no basis for allowing them to vote on whether the city should be allowed to continue the illegal practice of using excess Water Department earnings in the general fund. Proposition 218 is very clear, UTILITY FUNDS COLLECTED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE (e.g. providing water) MAY NOT BE USED FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. The city has been aware of this prohibition since 1996 and has blatantly continued this practice until private citizens had to sue to make them stop violating the law.

The use of scare tactics (we’ll take away your free Internet, swimming, certain police protections) is reminiscent of the roaring 30′s – you pay gangsters for “protection” and you’ll be able to continue to run your business without gangsters tearing up your place of business or scaring off your customers. The use of these Water Department funds for police, fire, parks, etc. has been illegal since 1996 – why should Water Department customers have to pay twice for the same service? They pay the same taxes as everyone else in the city for police, fire, parks, etc. and then they pay ANOTHER 11.5% when funds are transferred from the Water Department to the General Fund. Clearly the Water Department is charging more than its cost of operation (also against the law) so that an 11.5% “slush fund” is created and then slipped over to the general fund. Any legitimate audits of the Water Department should have pointed out the illegality of this practice years ago.

It’s EXACTLY like what I saw on the reality show “Kitchen Nightmares” tonight. The owner of the restaurant was paying his waiters/waitresses an hourly rate. All tips left by customers (who CLEARLY intended the tips to be for the servers) were kept by the OWNER who prohibited his staff from pocketing ANY tips left for them. When the customers were informed that the owner was pocketing the tips, they were absolutely outraged!! So should every voter in this election be outraged. Water charges are to pay for water, not police & parks. Tips are for the workers, not the owners.

STOP THIS RIP-OFF BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE – VOTE NO ON MEASURE A!

Tom Courbat Former Finance Director County of Riverside

Well stated Tom, we’ve stating this for years, but of course we are crazy or misinformed, because this is how they continue to treat and think of the community, because it is about the them not the communtiy.  The money as we’ve been stating for years has no accounting whereby the City states it is being allocated for particular services such as police and fire.  No documents responsive, so what are the taxpayers to think, except that for years this has been an 11.5% slush fund.

MEASURE-A UPDATE

The ring leader, as we feel,  could be none other than former Mayor Ron Loveridge, whom has operated this city as some underworld organization.  The community has an opportunity to begin to take back their City, and not have the follow in the footsteps of San Bernardino and Moreno Valley.  Don’t fall into their trap of scare tactics; ask them the hard questions.  Property taxes pay for City services, where is this money really going?  But why are they working so hard to pass this measure?  Even the Press Enterprise is on it.  Is it because they’ve recieved special utility rates in the past from the City?  Or is it because the City is helping them with a new location for their business?  Could it be Developer’s Mark Rubin’s Citrus Towers?  Or is it that we do not want to upset the fact that the County of Riverside is intending to purchase their building, of course they did.  What ever it is, the stress levels with City personal and staff are high.

What appears to be more outrageous is that the City seems to have plenty of money in the General Fund Reserves to subsidize the new Black Box Theatre.  This at a time when the City is claiming foul, and if Measure A doesn’t pass, the City will be on its way to doom and gloom.  The City claims that the 11.5% transfer has paid for a multitude of city services, but they are unable to produce documents revealing how it was spent.  The hypothetical question is, if the transfer money never actually paid for City services, what did it really pay for?  Well we don’t know that either. The approximately $6 million which appears to magic because it seems to fund everything under the sun that property taxes through the general fund does.  If in fact the 11.5% transferred all these programs and services, you would think that the City would immediately lease the Fox Theatre.  The Fox Theatre is currently running at a yearly deficit of approxixmately $3 million.  We just found $3 million just by leasing the Fox to the private sector.  There is no doubt in my mind that the City continues to cry wolf, and the sad ending to this is no one is listening.

While Councilman Steve Adams accuses representatives of the No on Measure A campaign of misinformation, he threatens the community by stating that if Measure A does not pass we will have to raise water rates and raise taxes.   Now this is a councilman who is rumored to have aspirations of running for Congress.  Well, Mr. Congressman raising water rates and raising taxes are not that easy, you’ll have to justify it, and so far you cannot even justify the current accounting on the transfer!  If you have to strong arm and scare the community into voting on an illegal measure, then you lack leadership abilities.

Measure A looks good to the Press Enterprise.  We at TMC question that move.  Was it because you didn’t want to upset the deal with the County of Riverside?  Was it because you receive special utility rates with the City of Riverside?  Was it because the City of Riverside is rumored to be assisting in locating an alternate location which is amicable?  Would it be with developer Mark Rubin’s Citrus Tower’s?  Contractually recieving better utility rates from the City of Riverside would this in fact effect your reporting?  I hope not, why have a paper that destroys the illusion of the Fourth Branch of Government?

resolution

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL REPORT

The people of the City of Riverside pay every month for the Fox Theatre, and the City would like the taxpayer to foot the bill for the Black Box Theatre, but most of the people footing the bill can’t afford to go to the Fox.  This at a time when the City is claiming for the first time in 16 years that the $6.1 million water transfer pays for essential services.  So how may I ask, does the City justify funding the Black Box Theatre at a cost to the taxpayer of close to $500,000.00 over 2 years, until it is able to sustain a profit and pay for itself.  If you can afford the Black Box you can afford Police and Fire.

resolution2

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

I recalled this was the same line statement made regarding the Fox Theatre and currently it is running at a yearly $3 million deficit.  So we have $3 million plus $0.5 million, what do we have, $3.5 million.  That’s $2.5 million away from what the City claims they will be losing.  Mayor Bailey went over budget in his mayor’s office by a miniscal $100,000.00.  There’s another 100K, and council just voted to hand over $750,000.00 to the Fairmont Park Golf Course.  How much are we at now?  Pretty close?  Then you have Mayor Bailey with the Streetcar Named Debacle idea?  Again, and again we the continued excessive spending and no cutbacks.  What you have here is that the City will threaten the residents to cut essential services such as Police and Fire, which by the way are already covered by property taxes, if Measure A is not passed.  This they will do before cutting non-essential services or expenses that continue to incurr as a deficit to the taxpayer.  Well, shame on them.

In the City’s desperation, they continue to stray into the gray areas of an FPPC violation, but that does not stop them.  Now there attempt to explain their slush fund over the areas has metamorphisized into some City services, to just about every service under the sun is funded by this $6 million water transfer.  Ask them specifically how they have spent this money over the last 16 years, they don’t have an answer.  The accounting stops when the monies are deposited into the General Fund, then it’s tracks are lost, not to be found.  It’s how the City wants it, it is the way it has always been since Ron Loveridge became Mayor.

mailer  mailer2  mailer3

Was Ron Loveridge a Proposition 218 proponent?  Was he a Propostion 13 proponent?  Probably not, he has done everything to change that.  In otherwords, counter to everything that is in effect, beneficial to the taxpayer. Why is that former Mayor Luv?  And why are the Police and Fire Unions spending so much money to buy your vote?  Is it really about them rather than the residents?

Another letter of support regarding the Moreno’s Water Lawsuit.  This from a former City Finance Director.

letterofsupport

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

MR. LIABILITY HEARING THE BEAT OF A DIFFERENT DRUM, OR JUST BEATING THE SAME OLE’ DRUM TO DEATH? 

drums3

Drumming up controversy, Councilman Steve Adams had alot to say regarding public speakers and disinformation.  I guess he forgot that public speakers tried to reach out years ago involving problems the City could have with issues concerning Proposition 218.  When brought to the forefront of the Council, those interest resulted in deaf ears.  The law suit filed by citizens resulted in a win for the residents of the City of Riverside.  But what will eventually happen according to Adams, is that the City will retaliate against the citizens of Riverside, this in my opinion for not voting in favor of Measure A.  If this is to occur Adams states we will have to make up this money through higher water rates and increase taxes.  Typical Adams?  But the reality of higher rates and taxes is to sustain their slush fund, and continued mismanagement of taxpayer monies. Or is it to help pay off the astronimical debt incurred to the taxpayer due to the Renaissance projects?   This is a fund which has no accounting of how tax monies were spent… and now aspirations for Congress?

adams

Councilman Adams getting cozy with Congressman Calvert, failed to respond to our inquiries regarding bond fraud in the City of Riverside, but it seems he responds better to a side of the road transaction.

Like electing Bernie Madoff as Mayor or Treasury secretary. Adams has proved he is not even qualified as councilmen. He used the illegal license plates for over a year and knew he was wrong as he was an ex police officer.  Then he cost the taxpayers 10 million in a settlement when he influenced the promotions of the police department.  Why would the city elect a proven criminal to Congress even if the Ward accepts his behavior. The DOJ has enough work with the current Congressmen who are committed crimes then to add another one.   We saw the former Police Chief embarrass the city and how well he worked with Steve Adams.  Just think how people were played for fools when a former police officer Steve Adams said he did not know the untraceable license plates only given to under cover federal officers which ever local police officer knows.  - Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the PE.

Isn’t this the Adams when cofronted by a public speaker at City Council regarding his excessive spending on food via the taxpayer, answered back, “Well, I gotta eat!”  or who answered back, “Yes!”  when he was asked if he thought disability was funny?

HUNT, HUNTING FOR ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE FERRETED OUT?

Tom Hunt, member of the RUSD Board of Education, calls certain people who have a personal problem with the city council because they were evicted from their city owned businesses.  It may be that he doesn’t understand that there are several degrees of “deadbeats” according to the City, the ones that the City likes and the ones they don’t, and there are those who the City supports and haven’t given them a late fee etc., and others that have and wouldn’t follow the program and you never want to do that, and there are those who just don’t follow the vision set forth by the City, and of course, there are those who have been railroaded.. We can ask former City Manager Brad Hudson about that one, but he suddenly skipped town a couple of years ago.  But don’t hold me on this, in fact don’t even put a gun to my head on this issue…

tomhunt

Making the case in favor of Measure A can’t be made, since it has been made.  Placing the issue on the ballot was not the idea or request in the Moreno’s lawsuit, but a offered by the City’s team of attorney’s.  I would imagine it this decision was made by the foremost attorney on Proposition 218 and a co-author of the Proposition 218 implementation guide, the City of Riverside’s hired attorney, Michael G. Colantuono.  We also recommend also to bring you questions on the legalities of Measure A to Attorney General, Kamal Harris at 1-800-952-5225.  The Moreno’s case fell under the realms of what is known as the Private Attorney General Act.

DISPORTIONALITY IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND MEASURE A.

Approximately 3,958 Riverside Public Utility customers won’t get to vote on Measure A, that’s because they are not City residents.  But they still contribute to the 11.5% transfer which is paid through their utility bill, therefore they will not receive a benefit in terms of police, fire and library.

Approximately 8,769 customers receive their water from Western Municipal, they will get to vote on Measure A, because they are residents, but don’t receive a benefit either.  Further, since they pay more for water, the 11.5% transfer is more for them, even though there is no benefit to them.

There are other’s who are Riverside residents who received Measure A ballots but are not Public Utility customers since they are on their own well water.

But as we have been saying along, water utilities cannot be a profit making entity.  City Clerk Coleen Nicol statement regarding public utility customers outside the City of Riverside is as follows:  “they’re paying for water.  The profit that the utility realizes, the citizens of Riverside have decided that a portion of the utility’s profit will be transferred to the general fund.”  Proposition 218 voted overwhelmingly by the voters in 1996 by 85% stated otherwise.

“That’s just the way it works” stated Councilman Paul Davis.  But don’t we as constituents elect officials as Davis to fix what is wrong, rather than nonchalantly state to simply otherwise deal with it?

If Measure A doesn’t pass, some council people are crying foul.  Councilman Steve Adam’s said we need the money, we therefore have to increase water rates and taxes.  Why should the taxpayer pay for the bad decisions a Council person makes?

A PEEK AT WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIMOS HAS COSTED THE TAXPAYER LEGAL LIABILITY

                     SETHURTBACON                                                        SETDELAROSA

THE BACON/HURT SETTLEMENT            THE CHRIS LANZILLO SETTLEMENT

The City/ Taxpayer paid out to Lt. Darryl Hurt $300,000.00 and to Lt. Tim Bacon $250,000.00.  Even Chris Lanzillo recieved compensation of $25,000.00.  This is someone according to the document had 8 workers compensation claims pending with the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board related with his employment with the City.  He then went to start his own business in Orange County, some question his claims of disability.  He later made news by inaccurately accusing a local councilman of drunk driving.  Lanzillo was the former president of the Riverside Police Union.

SCOTT SIMPSON’S “A SCHEME IS BORN” TIMELINE.  Scott Simpson’s background: Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Dept. of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination.  Simpson brought issues of illegalities of the water fund and citizens water rates to the Riverside Grand Jury.  The first submission was lost, the second one was incidently thrown out without an interview.  Questions regarding close ties between the City, Judges, DA and Grand Jury were brought into speculation.  As you see from Simpson’s background, this was his job to bring issues to the courts, so it is therefore quite remarkable how he was treated at our local Grand Jury level.  Simpson “A Scheme is Born” analytical timeline of the chain of events over the years regarding water rates, violations of Proposition 218 and who knew.

schemejpeg

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL TIMELINE “A SCHEME IS BORN”

The City always knew, those who were players in these criminal actions.  The City of Riverside had a deadline as all cities had, the date of November 08, 1998.  The date came and the City failed the meet the approved deadline, therefore knowlingly violating the State Constitution, since probably, who is really going to challenge them?  Well, in 2012, the Moreno’s did, and the judge agreed, and the City of Riverside’s attorney agreed, afterall, he wrote the implementation guide.

A WORD FROM FORMER MANAGING EDITOR OF THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, MEL OPOTOWSKY, ON A NO VOTE ON MEASURE A!

Untitled-1 copy

According to a PE opinion by Opotowsky, he stated that the Yes on Measure A campaign is playing on our fears.  They took us for fools when they warned in the (illegal) descriptions in city literature that the money was needed for 911 services. Does anyone really believe the City Council members would have the temerity cut the 911 operation if Measure A doesn’t pass?

They take us for fools when they warn that police patrols will be cut. Who thinks that would happen in this very pro-police city?

And the rest of the threatened cuts — programs for fire protection, seniors (not likely because they vote), the disabled, after-school programs (well, they may cut that because “those people” don’t vote).

The outlandish prevarication regarding the clean water and the 911 cutbacks brings us to the second maternal quote: What can we believe from City Hall?

Common sense tells us that in facing the loss of a mere 3 percent of the budget if A does not pass, city officials should find a way to make small reductions in the things that make them feel good — like plaques under a railroad underpass and giving up the expensive Don Quixote fight to save Redevelopment Agency projects.

Gee, they say, it’s only $6 million and we have been taking it for years and nobody said anything. They took it illegally, it turned out, and they knew it was illegal. They just figured the rubes wouldn’t be nit-picky about our government following the law. All that time they took us for fools.

Read the whole article by clicking this link..

MORENO VALLEY: KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY: CITY MANAGER HENRY GARCIA OUT, TOM DE SANTIS IN AS NEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.. What will Garcia’s long time girlfriend, City of Riverside’s Human Resources Director Rhonda Strout, A.K.A. Luxury Girl,  say about this?  Will she attempt to give Henry a job in the janitorial position in order to help clean house in the City of Riverside?  What is the rumor with Tom?  After keeping track of city business on post it notes, badges and cold plates, did he leave due to indiscretions while at the City of Riverside?  Why did he leave the County of San Bernardino?  Was it the same?

Recently, Barry Foster, head of the Economic Department also the City’s Community Development Director, left his position according to the PE.  Rumor is, was he actually fired?  Foster is also the husband of Riverside’s former Public Works Director, Siobhan Foster.  Foster abruptly left the City of Riverside, to take a position almost an hour away for the City of Pasadena, as their Public Works Director.  Pasadena’s City Manager Michael Beck was also former City of Riverside’s Assistant City Manager, during the time when cold plates and badges were in.

ELECTRICUTILITIES

In Moreno Valley Electric Utilities, The New Mission Statement include an interesting new twist. “In the future, MVU will provide more revenue for the City’s general fund, which helps pay for other important city programs.”  Was the influence De Santis?  This is what happened in the City of Riverside when De Santis was City Manager.  Increase the electric rates and take a percentage of the electric fund to transfer to the general fund.

desantis22

Thomas DeSantis

Nothing really changes but always seems to come back in full circle where we left off.  The surprising chain of events which has consumed, after the Mike Rios incident, makes for a great new story for “Mad Men.”

BLACK VOICE ARTICLE ON FORMER MORENO VALLEY COUNCILMAN BATEY

BATEY

Former Moreno Valley Councilman Bill Batey on doing the right thing and why he reported possible corruption in the City of Moreno Valley to the Riverside County Distric Attorney’s Office.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE CAMPAIGNING THE YES ON MEASURE A CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS?

The mailers that the Yes on Measure A campaign have been distributing have been reflective of their talking points.  This new mailer just received has the City of Riverside star of approval with endorsing names such as our Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, Fire Chief Steve Earley and City Manager Scott Barber.  It cannot get any more blatant than this.  Legally the City of Riverside has had to take a position of neutrality, while over the past few months stated it was on a Measure A informational tour.  This mailer shows that that the City sent this mailer and can be ultimately construed as a campaign mailer endorsing a Yes vote on Measure A.  This can be seen just by the language and pictorial used.

mailer

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

Further this mailer was paid for by you and me the “Taxpayer.”  Therefore is the City of Riverside on the verge of violating FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commision) rules and regulations?  Not to mention misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

DOITAGAIN

Will you do it again? or be fooled again by the Yes on Measure A Campaign?

If Measure A doesn’t pass will lose all of a sudden in excess of 80 jobs?  The majority of the campaign financing have been the Fire Unions and Police Unions.  Why are they struggling so hard to have a mere 2.8% to 3.1% of the budget not get cut?  If the City of Riverside is actually in dire straights, and using Measure A as a scapegoat, it shouldn’t be a problem to dissolve the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside Fire Department, and transfer both forces to the Riverside County Sheriff and Cal Fire.

Even the NAACP is involved with the  Yes on Measure A campaign.  What does the NAACP have to do with a water issue?  That’s a question to ask Woodie Rucker-Hughes.

naacp

Why would Ms. Rucker-Hughes and the NAACP inadvertainly appear to have some sort of obligatory agreement with the City of Riverside on this issue?  Why would she dis those she is in position to help?  Is it all about who we dance with?  I seriously don’t think the NAACP would approve.  That’s just me talking, the TMC reporter.

08TUTUS_1117_G_dwb     zellerback

The City’s hypocrisy has no end..

Vote No on Measure A,  www.noonmeasureariverside.com

For more information on this June 4th, 2013 Measure A, contact us noonmeasureariverside@hotmail.com

WETTWOPSD233

GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, AFTERALL, WE THE TAXPAYER HAVE TO..

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 ONE TWO 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