Posts Tagged ‘city of riverside’

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

 aerialB-housing-developmenta

WE WERE TOLD THEY ONLY GLOW AT NIGHT..

Toxic Trails Estates…A great place to raise your family?  What would you do if you paid $500,000.00 for a new home, and later found that it sits on a major toxic spill?  Would you drink the water, well evidently Council drank the Koolaid, and bobbled right behind their infamous leader City Attorney Gregory Priamos to a potential unlawful emergency close session meeting.  It is TMC’s opinion that Priamos called the unlawful meeting so he could reprimand the council for postponing the vote on the AG Park housing development.  Whether TMC is right or wrong, it sure does sound good!  The housing project couldn’t even get bonded.  Why is developer Chuck Cox allowed to do a project as this without any bond insurance?  Cox is asking the City to take a deed of trust in lieu of a bond.  Really?  Why is he so special?  Is it because he couldn’t get bond insurance because it was a toxic spill site?  The meeting even became dramatic when Attorney Letitia Pepper POUNDED on the closed session door, demanding they all come out, and she wasn’t kidding either!  Of course she was met by two of Riverside’s finest and that handsome devil himself Assistant Chief of Police Chris Vicino, who attempted to diffuse the whole situation.  Isn’t Vicino married, he should know that you shouldn’t argue with a woman, especially if she is smarter.  You have to believe that Chief of Police Sergio Diaz knew better this time around, to stay far away from these legal vixens..

It all started in 2003, whereby developer Chuck Cox gave the city a parcel of land next to the golf course by Riverside Municipal Airport in exchange for a piece of land called simply the Old Agricultural Park.  The Old Agricultural Park had evidently been contaminated from and old city sewer plant on or adjacent to the parcel.

The following is a 2003 Interoffice Memo from Public Works Director Tom Boyd, then deputy public works director, to former City Manager George Caravalho, reporting the breakage of a digester tank which spilled its contents, and the intended clean up plans.  Later, lab analysis determined the spilled contents to contain high amounts of PCB’s (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) as well as other dangerous contaminants, as indicated below:

memoone     memotwo     memothree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MEMO WITH ANALYTICAL CONTAMINANT RESULTS

Compare the Result with the DLR (Detection Limit for purpose of Reporting)-below the DLR is acceptable, over is unacceptable.  The below December 2005 Fact Sheet Cleanup Proposal states that as a result of the contaminant findings, that there are no health risk to current residents, however, they can pose a risk to future residents living in homes built on the site…  You be the judge, we’ve had City workers who have died working on the cleanup, we’ve had resident reports surrounding the untouched properties who claimed illness.

factsheet

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL FACT SHEET

In the below youtube video, Attorney Letitia Pepper had just pounded on a closed session door to attempt to notifying Council that they are violating the brown act.  The council was inadvertently called into session by City Attorney Gregory Priamos to discuss a non agendized matter.  By Council following the City Attorney’s lead, they unknowingly violated the Brown Act.

Untitled-4     Untitled-2
CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW YOUTUBE VIDEO

Two Police Officers, Assistant Chief of Police Chris Vicino, Attorney Letitia Pepper and Attorney Raychele Sterling continued to discuss and ferret out legal aspects if pounding on a door is illegal, or just discourteous, as what they said about Chief Diaz.  The finer points of the discourteous pounding discussion continued even after council found a different mode of exit, known as sneaking out the back door.  Councilman Soubirous was the only council member that used the front door.

poundingx

Arrow points to the X Marks the spot where Pepper pounded closed session door…

UPDATE: 1:00PM: JUST IN: ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE TELLING TMC THAT THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING WAS LEGAL BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH A PERSONNEL ISSUE, NOT A NON AGENDIZED ISSUE!  IS SOMEONE LEAVING?

UPDATE:2:00PM: IT TRUE, ALL THE HOOPLAH LAST NIGHT IF YOU PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, WAS ALL ABOUT CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS LEAVING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR NEW JOB WITH THE BIG TOP, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS INDICATED IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE.  Priamos evidently had an interview with the County Supervisors yesterday morning, which was not on the agenda as well.  He will be named the County’s Chief Council.  As of 2012 salary statistics Priamo’s total salary package with the City of Riverside came out to $309,671.10, and will more than likely go up with as he double dips with the County.  Should he have to explain how he was clowning around with taxpayer monies when it came to utilizing outside legal help with no contract?  When it come to inside office parties, is Priamos the king of the clowns?

clownpriamos

WHAT ARE PEOPLE IN RIVERSIDE ARE SAYING, BESIDES GOOD RIDDANCE?

UPDATE: 06.24.2014: RIVERSIDE COUNTY GET’S OUR CROOK, NOW THEIR CROOK!  PRIAMOS OFFICIALLY NAMED COUNTY COUNSEL..

post-28556-Heath-Ledger-Joker-Clapping-gi-fKX9     clapping-animated-240x180     Barack-Obama-Clapping-in-Front-of-American-Flags    LaughingMonkey1

UPDATE: 06.23.2014: FROM THE DESK OF LETITIA PEPPER: COMPLAINT REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT.

To: Rusty Bailey, Mike Gardner, Andy Melendrez, Steve Adams, Chris MacArthur, Jim City Council Ward6 Perry, Paul Davis, soubirous@riversideca.gov
Cc: Colleen, Greg Priamos, Scott Barber

To Riverside’s City Council and Mayor:
In addition to ongoing violations of people’s free speech rights, the City officials have also engaged in violations of the Brown Act.  Most recently, the City Attorney called an illegal, unscheduled, un-noticed, and un-described closed session on June 17, 2014, as evidenced by the video of the City Council meeting at 05:07:03- 24.
This illegal closed session was further compounded by the Mayor’s adjourning the public meeting before the illegal closed session took place, as evidenced by the same video at 05:09:12. After closed sessions, there must be a report on such session. By adjourning the meeting, this step was side-stepped.
I demand that the Mayor and City Attorney publicly acknowledge that what occurred was a violation of the Brown Act, and that they publicly pledge not to engage in future violations.

Letitia Pepper

cc City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager   bcc concerned citizens

UPDATE: 06.23.2014:9:00PM: ACCORDING TO THE BROWN ACT PRIMER, CITY COUNCIL VIOLATED THE BROWN ACT LAST WEEK!

Brown Act Primer: Closed Sessions

Part 5 of FAC’s Brown Act Primer discusses closed sessions rules for when the public may be excluded from public meetings
Preview by Yahoo

If you look at the limited situations in which a closed session is legal, you’ll see that closed sessions can be used for personnel matters, but not for an announcement by an employee saying he’s leaving!  Closed sessions for personnel matters can only be used to discuss the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee.  (Gov. Code section 54957, subd. (b).)  Furthermore, such sessions still need to be listed on the written agenda before hand, unless they involve an emergency,  the Council holds a vote and decides that it is an emergency, and then publicly states before going into closed session the code section that authorizes an emergency closed session.
Items not listed on a posted agenda may not be discussed in closed sessions except in three circumstances: an emergency, a need for immediate action and an item that was posted on a previous agenda.  (Govt. Code section 54954.2, subd. (b).)  None of those situations applied at the June 17 City Council meeting.
A City Council cannot decide that there’s an emergency or need for immediate action without discussing this during an open meeting, and then having 2/3ds of them vote to hold a closed session for this reason.  (Govt. Code section 54954.2, subd. (b)(2).)  Then there must be an oral, public announcement of the basis for the session before they go into a closed session.  Obviously, none of these things happened at the council meeting in question.
Any other (non-emergency) items for a closed session MUST be on the agenda.  Period.  It’s a basic part of the Brown Act.

WHAT WAS RIVERSIDE’S POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATION/UNION (RPOA) PRESIDENT BRIAN SMITH AND VICE PRESIDENT AURELIO MELENDREZ TRYING TO SAY?  WERE THEY THE PERPETRATORS BEHIND THE EXPENSIVE TAXPAYER PAID COMPLAINT AGAINST ONE COUNCILMAN?  WAS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO MUSCLE A MOVE WITH THE HELP OF TAXPAYER MONEY AGAINST ONE COUNCILMAN?  THEREFORE WHAT WAS THE MO?

IS DOING THE WORK OF THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE AGAINST CITY POLICY?

brian smith         aureliomelendrez

             BIAN SMITH, PRESIDENT OF RPOA                       AURELIO MELENDREZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF RPOA

June 17, 2014 City Council: Public

Brian Smith, RPOA President

What was the RPOA talking about? Mike Soubirous? They appear to admit they were involved with this complaint, it couldn’t be more obvious.

Brian Smith, President of the Riverside Officers Association at City Council June 17, 2014:

Several months ago I had a conversation with a council member, ahh, which brought me some concern. Ahh, I brought that information back to some members within the City. The Department head and City Manager, ahh, it was then brought to the then Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, and a decision was made to conduct an investigation. You authorized an investigation to be done, and I’m here to address a couple things that I believe are rumors, so, I’m not a huge fan of rumors, innuendo and supposition, so I’m going to ask you to do a couple things.

An investigation was conducted. To my understanding, the party of that investigation aside from myself as a witness, has not yet participated in the investigation, whether it be in writing or otherwise. And I think that should be done.

Secondly, my understanding is that some members want to see a summary of the investigation. And I don’t think that’s fair.  Not only to me, but it’s also not fair to you as a council and it’s not fair to the citizens as a whole. I would ask that you look into that, completely and thoroughly, don’t just take a summary. A lot of time and effort was put into that investigation. There’s an actual transcription of everyone’s interview, and I think that it is important that you get that interview, and that you read through each and every one of those, and make that decision.

I also think that if you as a council decide, after reviewing that, that it’s a matter of public record and public comment, I think it should be done. I think that publicly they should be able to.. the public should know what you’ve decided to do and what things, allegations have been made.

I also think that councilmember deserves the right to answer, to what I said, happened. I think he is entitled to that, and he should… And I think that he wants the opportunity to do that, and I think that it is the best thing, for all of us concerned, both myself, the city as a whole, the public, and those of you that are seated here.

You are the centuries at the gate, it is your responsibility to police yourselves, and conduct yourself in a manner that is appropriate. If somebody has brought forth an allegation of inappropriate behavior, it needs to be investigated, it needs to be looked into, and ultimately a decision made. And that’s.. I’m here to answer any questions that you may have, I doubt there will be any, but you all know how to get a hold of me, if need be.

Aurelio Melendrez

Aurelio Melendrez, Vice President of the Riverside Officers Association at City Council June 17, 2014:

Good evening, I’m Brian’s vice president with the Riverside Police Officers Association. My Biggest concern, that’s come out of this, is that, for any of you that have been for any longer than four years. You remember what it was like when we had city government that over reached their bounds, stuck there hands in department heads business that didn’t belong there. I want to make sure for the sake of transparency, just like this councilman has asked for, that we put it out there for everybody to see.  Brian, me, all of us at the association want to make sure our organization is protected.. we don’t want to go backwards, we’re trying to go forward.

Sergio Diaz recently had an incident, first thing he did was sign away his right to privacy, and he shared his complaint openly, he took ownership of what he did, and I want to make sure this person does the same.. Thank-you.

Does Melendrez appears to conceive that RPD is an independent “organization” as stated at City Council?  An organization (or organisation) is an entity, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.  Has Riverside’s finest lost there way?  Concerned citizens and local community groups in Riverside say Yes!  RPD needs to be more community orientated and needs to stop thinking they are an independent external entity.

What is it between Council and RPD?  According to Melendrez, there was a time that city government “overreached there bounds”, and stuck there hands in department heads business that didn’t belong there.   What was meant by that?  Were they talking about Councilman Adams interfering with the promotion process?  Or was it our City Attorney Greg Priamos, with his embroidered bullet proof vest, which states “City Attorney,”  involved with the raid on the Vibe club in Riverside?   Or is it simply by Chiefs Diaz’s standard, that people should simply stay out of police business and stay at home eating cheetos in their underwear?  Is he saying they should be independent?  Is Riverside a dicktatorship? Sorry, a dictatorship as many in our residential communities are expressing?  Who would then in the City be authorized to ask questions regarding police business?  Incidentally, Aurelio Melendrez is the son of current Ward 2 Councilman Andy Melendrez..

melendrez1A

Is the focus of Smith’s and Melendrez’s complaint directed possibly toward Councilman Mike Soubirous, the only independent voice on the Council?  A complaint against Soubirous is a complaint against Ward 3 constituents who we are told respect their hard working Councilman.  Since Aurelio is the son of Councilman Andy Melendrez, can we believe there may be some conflict of interest at hand due to his familial connection?

MS

What those two officers need to know is that Councilman Soubirous is their boss.

hillmailer

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

We asked the question if this whole investigation is politically motivated because the City supported Valerie Hill rather than Soubirous.  Another interesting point regarding this mailer is that it was paid for by the Riverside Police Officer’s Association  as indicated by the red arrow.  According to a new article in the Press Enterprise, Soubirous continues to say he believes the investigation is politically motivated because the police union backed his opponent in the election, and because he has questioned police department actions and policies since taking office.  Is this becoming a issue of Piss Poor Politics?

Why did City Manager Scott Barber walk out right before Riverside Police Officers Association/ Union President Brian Smith came to the podium?  Was he disturbed that Smith made public, something that shouldn’t have been public?

BARBER

Second Councilman Paul Davis, is also up against a Human Resource Complaint for a similar presmise… Doing the work of the people has it drawbacks..it certainly seems you will get political blowback for asking question.

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

When did that become so bad, is it only in Riverside?  The ultimate question they should be asking and concerned about is what is really going to happen to Police Officer Pensions in 2016?  That should be of concern.  Maybe Brian and Aurelio should realize that the way the City of Riverside has done business, will impact their jobs.  For one thing they should understand where pension monies have gone, there will be n money t sue the city if need be.  They need to do a little bit of investigative work themselves, in order to uncover how their pension monies have been used. The following is a response by Riverside Police Officers Association President Brian Smith to Thirty Miles of Corruption.

6/20/14: To: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM 

Interesting to read your take on what the rpoa was “saying” at the council meeting.  Perhaps a little investigating on your part you’d find a councilman likely violated the Brown Act…intimated that the city manager and chief of police jobs were in jeopardy. ..and a myriad of other things..

You may also uncover during your investigation that the complaint was actually filed by city employees and not the union.  In fact, the union was interviewed as a witness only.

The fact of the matter is this particular councilman needs to stop campaigning and start governing!  

Feel free to contact me, after you have done a little investigation on your own. 

Brian C Smith

TMC’s response to Brian Smith’s email response..

6/20/14: To: BRIAN SMITH, PRESIDENT OF RPOA

Hi Brian,

I do appreciate your email response regarding the one councilman who allegedly violated the Brown Act.  With all due respect, myself and the citizens of Riverside have a great appreciation for our Police force and the excellent work they do for our community.  For some reason, many find it difficult to forward constructive criticism regarding The Riverside Police Force, because it seems when we are responded to, we are disregarded and not taken seriously.

I’d like more than anything to clean this possible misconception up.  I will definitely make it right with regards to your conception of spin.  Spin is not good, it only makes us dizzy about the reality of true events. I’d like to ask you some questions to clear this up.  Regarding this one councilman,  “What part of the Brown Act did he specifically violate?”

As taxpayers we spent approximately 100K to ask a question (50K for the investigation and 50K for the law firm), we are still waiting for the 100K question to be answered.  Wouldn’t it have been frugal for city employees to file an ethics complaint?  Which would be free.

In your email to me you stated that, “You may also uncover during your investigation that the complaint was actually filed by city employees and not the union.”  I realize that only employees of the City of Riverside can initiate this complaint.  Were you one of the employees at the time that initiated this complaint?  Were the employees City Manager Scott Barber and Police Chief Diaz?

Could you clear up the statements made at City Council June 17, 2014, whereby you stated that “Several months ago I had a conversation with a council member, which brought me some concern.  I brought that information back to some members within the City.  Department head and City Manager, it was then brought to Mayor Pro Temp and Mayor.”  Could you clarify this statement.

Also, you stated, “I also think that councilmember should have a right to answer to what I said, happen.  I think he is entitled to that.”  Could you clarify this statement.

At one time you were under Chris Lanzillo, who was president of RPOA, could you express any premonition yet to come regarding his behavior with reference to his alleged alliances with Lackie, Dammeier & McGill?

At some point in time did you feel that some in RPD were entitled to personal use of city vehicles?  Could you give us some insight regarding allegation of Councilman Steve Adams and interfering with the promotional process?  When you were Vice President and Chris Lanzillo was President of the RPOA, could you give us some insight in reference to the Cop Playbook?  Lastly, is this a concerted effort on part of the City to remove certain council people due to politics?

Again, thank-you for contacting us.

All the best,  Javier Moreno

UPDATE: JUNE,22,2014: FROM THE DESK OF ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER: NEW RULES WHEREBY SPEAKER CARDS MUST BE TURNED IN ADVANCE.

To: K Wright, Colleen, Sherry Morton-Ellis, asmelendrez@riversideca.gov, msoubirous@riversideca.gov, Chris MacArthur, Mike Gardner, Paul Davis, Rusty Bailey, Steve Adams, sbarber@riversideca.gov, Greg Priamos
Cc: Kevin Dawson, Gurumantra Khalsa
Re: The Recent Rule that All Speaker Cards Must Be Turned in Advance of the Public Comment Period Appears to Be Unconstitutional.

Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, City Attorney Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber:
I was present, as was Kevin Dawson and a few other people, when, as Karen Wright walked to turn in a speaker card during the on-going public comment period, she was specifically singled out by Mayor Bailey by name, and told that her card would not be accepted because it was turned in too late.
I had already intended to send you a letter about this event, but since Karen Wright copied me with her e-mail, I’ll provide my comments instead by e-mail.
Free speech is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by both the stet and federal constitutions. Any time the government takes action that impairs a fundamental right, it must have a compelling reason to do so, and it must use the least intrusive means possible to accomplish its alleged goal.
Here, the right at stake is the First Amendment (and concomitant but more protective state constitutional article) right of political speech. This right includes the right to comment on the government’s actions in a specifically forum designed for such purpose, the public comment section, as well as the period for public comment after each agenda item. This relatively new rule requires that all speaker cards for each such period all be turned in before the agenda item has been called.
As explained below, this rule appears to be unconstitutional, and I ask that the City Council promptly rescind such rule and return to the original method of letting people turn in speaker cards up until the final comment for each period has concluded.
The background for my conclusion that the new rule is unconstitutional follows. If the City Attorney advises you to the contrary, please remember that this is the same attorney who told you that “moratoriums are illegal” (as you know, we currently have a moratorium on the issuance of building permits) and the same attorney who advised Mayor Bailey that arresting me for applauding was a perfectly good solution to — what? What problem was the applause causing? But I digress.
In the past, the citizens of Riverside were able to comment on various items simply by lining up along the walls and waiting their turn as each agenda item was called. They did not need to fill out speaker cards. The citizens, not the government, decided on the order in which they would speak. The citizens could listen to their fellow citizens speak, and then decide that they, too, wanted to comment — and then get up and join the line to add their comments, too. Legally, no one was required, as a condition of being allowed to speak, to give an name or an address, or any other information, including whether they favored or disfavored an item.
But under Ronald Loveridge, that clever political scientist, this was changed. Speaker cards were required, as well as the speakers supposed stand on an item. This changed the balance of power. The government could control the order of speakers. It could group those in favor or opposed together, and let one group or the other speaker first or last. The government could make sure that a strong speaker that supported the position of the government would be the final speaker. I personally saw these things happen over the years.
Although legally the government cannot require people to give a name, address or other information as a condition of speaking, the average person does not know this. So some people choose not to speak up because they do not want to share such information. I have seen this happen, too, when people, like me, who have used medial marijuana with great success, could share how much it has helped them, but are afraid to do so because of the potential ramifications such use could have on them because of the irrationnal laws that still exist making such use illegal or grounds for losing employment.
I have personally witnessed all these uses of the speaker card system to give the government an “edge” over public speech. This new rule is simply another attempt to let the government have unnecessary control over free speech.
Now, the rationale is that letting people turn in speaker cards during the meeting is somehow “disruptive.” It is not disruptive. It was never disruptive in the past for people to turn in cards during the meeting. I, and others, saw this happen for many years, with no problems.
Even court rooms function in this way, with people able to approach to bailiff or court room clerk, while court is in session and the judge is listening to other people, in order to quietly conduct other business unrelated to the event then taking place before the judge.

     So walking up to the front corner of the room to slip a speaker card into the receptacle, while someone else is at the podium speaking, is simply not so disruptive as to justify depriving anyone (even Karen Wright, who it’s clear is one of the City’s “disfavored” speakers) of the fundamental right of free political speech.
Requiring anyone who wishes to speak to turn in a speaker card at any time before the very end of the period for such speech is not the least intrusive way of solving the alleged problem of “disruption.” There was no disruption caused by handling things in the prior way.
Again, I ask that the City Council take a stand and represent its constituents by protecting their right to engage in the fundametnal constitutional right of political speech without unwarranted intrusion and interference by their government.

Letitia E. Pepper

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

 

CODE

FROM THE DESK OF LOUIS J. JEAN-LOUIS:
By: *Louis J. Jean-Louis, a freelance writer

The City of Riverside, along with its elected officials and attorneys Gregory Priamos, James E. Brown and Rahman N. Gerren — much like other cities across the US and their attorneys — has devolved its governance into a quasi-criminal operation, thereby perpetrating a scheme on thousands of its homeowners since the mortgage meltdown of 2008.

The fraudulent scheme clusters around the use of its Code Enforcement Department to target homeowners whose houses are in foreclosure, a segment of the population that happens to be disproportionately African-American, Minority, Elderly, Residents who lack proficiency in the English language and are unable to afford the high cost of litigation.

Through its Code Enforcement Department Officers, the City tags the target property owners’ homes with recurring citations, retroactive fines and excessive administrative fees amounting to $1,000.00 a day and a maximum of $100,000.00 per occurrence for minor violations.

These minor violations, which include, “dry grass, overgrown vegetation, outdoor storage, unpermitted home use and parking vehicles in their driveways,” are prima facie unconstitutional because of their vagueness, overreaching nature and their selective prosecution to the herein enumerated property owners.

The Code Enforcement Department further uses other purported administrative remedies, such as citing the target homeowners for nuisance abatement, conducting warrantless searches to gain access to their homes to drum up additional charges and ostensibly build a claim against their homes and invoking its illegal receivership power, which amounts to illegal takings of personal and real property without due process and procedural due process.

The City further establishes a kangaroo court system in which its employees serve as prosecutor, judge, and jury in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, to extort millions of dollars from its residents pursuant to a criminal enterprise that may be the subject of federal prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations, known as the Federal RICO statutes of the United States of America.

Some of the City’s victims, who are elderly, foreign residents and therefore lack proficiency in the English language, are unaware that anything is wrong until the sheriff shows up at their door with an eviction notice. And, under this scenario, their belongings end up on the city sidewalks while their elderly parents and young children are forced into the homeless shelters of the city that are already overcrowded. Although not reported in the main-stream media, some of the victims of this criminal scheme have chosen suicide over the loss of the greatest investment of their lifetime: their piece of the American Dream.

The City’s bureaucracy then turns its recurring citations, retroactive fines and excessive administrative fees into a lien on the target properties. And the lien, in turn, gives the city a significant ownership interest in the target property owners’ homes, thus clouding the title of the said homes.

That cloud or slander of title then causes the homeowners’ respective banks to raise their monthly mortgage payments exponentially, and in one particular case to $14,000.00 a month, making it impossible for those struggling homeowners, either to afford their mortgages, sell their properties, refinance their loans or negotiate modification or short-sale options with their respective banks, leaving them with only one alternative: foreclosure.

After foreclosure, which in effect removes the target property owners from the chain of title, the City of Riverside negotiates with the respective property owners’ banks to buy those foreclosed homes for a fraction of their value. The City then renovates and resells those homes to other co-conspirators of the scheme at a substantial profit. Or, alternatively, the City, in concert with the County of Riverside, attaches to, and collects its outstanding liens from, the target property owners’ tax bill or from the proceeds of the foreclosure sales.

Listed on the Code Enforcement website is a file, entitled “Open Cases”, that contains approximately 2,500 similarly-situated property owners who are being targeted by the City of Riverside’s ongoing criminal scheme.

Moreover, I have obtained other documents that prove rather inclusively that the primary purpose of the City of Riverside’s criminal scheme is to use fiat code ordinances, which are trumped or preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitutional, The California Constitution and other State laws and statutes, to extort millions of dollars from some of the most indigent and financially-strapped citizens of the community.

Even more frightening, in the view of some, the selective prosecution of these unconstitutional municipal ordinances predominantly against African-Americans, citizens of Hispanic descent and other Minorities under color of law and official right is tantamount to a form of modern-day ethnic cleansing.

I, an investigative reporter, am one of tens of thousands present and past similarly-situated victims of this rampant corruption by Riverside elected officials and public servants. One such case against Riverside for civil rights violation, styled Louis J. Jean-Louis v. City Of Riverside, et al, Case No. ED CV 13-01059-MMM (ASx), has been filed in federal court on my behalf.

As its financial woes worsen, the City of Riverside, aided by its attorney Priamos, assistant attorneys Brown and Gerren, and complicit network law firms … who are aiding and abetting the municipal bureaucracy in its criminal scheme, is even more determined than ever to continue perpetrating their fraud under the guise of enforcing fiat municipal ordinances: a criminal fraud that has thus far netted the City and its accomplices millions of dollars in ill-gotten wealth. The unfair, deceptive and illegal activities of Riverside, its attorneys, elected officials and public officials and network law firms have been carried out heretofore with impunity.

If you are a class action attorney or a firm that is interested in pursuing a class action lawsuit against the City of Riverside, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Or if you are a victim of a similar fraud by Riverside or any other US city and would like to start a support group to combat this public corruption, please contact me either by telephone @ (951) 897-1691 or via email @ jl4jc2@aol.com

You may also file a complaint against Riverside City attorneys Gregory Priamos, James E. Brown and Rahman N. Gerren with the State Bar of California, which is located at 845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90017-2515 (213) 765-1000; or against the city officials themselves with the following agencies: The US Attorney General Eric H. Holder, US Department of Justice, Criminal Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20530-0001; State Attorney General Ms. Kamala D. Harris, California Department of Justice, Attn.: Public Inquiry Unit, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550; Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, CA 95814; Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Martin R. Castro, 624 Ninth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20425; and the Local Office of the FBI, Los Angeles, Suite 1700, FOB, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024-3672.

In times of public corruption, the greatest threat to liberty is for the majority of the citizenry to remain silent in the face of tyranny: when others’ constitutional rights are being systematically violated. Therefore, let’s continue to speak up and expose this systemic fraud by elected officials and public servants. And let the chips fall wherever they may!

*Louis J. Jean-Louis has a BS Degree in Journalism, with emphasis in Reporting and Editing.

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, 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

phone recording

RIVERSIDE COUNCILMAN PAUL DAVIS GET’S SMART..

Councilman Paul Davis made the call to State Controller John Chiang’s office in order to initiate an audit this past Wednesday morning.  At City Council this past Tuesday, questions just seemed to abound in the audience, and when the answers to questions  just seemed not to be right, it just generated more questions.  The more questions that were asked specifically two Council member Davis and Soubirous, just seem to cause blow back by City personnel.  But why?  In July 2009 the rate for a single family dwelling was $14.94.  By July 2014, the rate was to be $28.55 + CPI (Consumer Price Index).  That evidently was not enough to cover increasing debt by a utility the public owns, and should actually get a divident in my eyes.  But who was running the store?  Because since it was not enough, Public Works had to pose an increase beyond $28.55 + CPI.  Councilman Mac Arthur motioned to pass the increase to $30.98 this July 2014, a $2.43 jump.  Many in the audience at City Council called out for a “recall.”  From 2009 to 2018 the sewer rate will jumped $16.04…quite remarkable!  Why did this happen?  Answers didn’t seem to fit logically into the template of rationality and the audience knew it..

The answers that were given was that CSD’s (Community Service Districst), such as the Jurupa Valley, Edgemont, Rubidoux and Highgrove were not paying their fair share.  The Sewer equipment needed to be upgraded because some of it went back as far as 1940.   Also, the recession, population growth rates, Federal requirement and as Councilman Adams suggested a “miscalculation.”  Of course, the one we know, is debt service from all the bonds taken out against the sewer.  Bonds that should have been used for the very sewer upgrade they are asking for.

The most significant points Council members Soubirous and Davis inquired about, how did the City of Riverside reach this pinnacle point of desperation?  In other words, how did it all happen?  Residents pay a sewer fee in order to maintain, repair and replace sewer related items.  If the fees were adequate over the years, maybe more than adequate, that the City borrowed/loaned/advanced monies to other City projects etc. etc., in the midst, did they inadvertently leave are sewer system to the back burner?  Therefore, are these rate hikes really necessary?  It seems to me, that someone was negligent at overseeing the property of the public.

While Councilman Gardner attempted to say that maybe we won’t need an audit, because we have CSD (Community Service Districts) revenue, reclamation water sales, rate hikes and more bond sales…   Councilman Mac Arthur said nothing was done for many years, but motions for rate hike increase, does Mayor Bailey motion to second?  Rate hikes are necessary in order for bond sales to occur.  Both Gardner and Mac Arthur did not address Davis’s comment of bringing John Chiangs office for an audit of the sewer accounts.

The Membrane Bioreactor is it really necessary?  The reclaimed water as a result is looked at as a commodity and a revenue source!  Therefore, shouldn’t the residents receive a divident or a lower sewer rate as a result of  this?  Isn’t a Membrane Bioreactor indicative of being part of a City’s Purple Pipe Program?  This is another question which we hope the State Controllers Office will have an answer for.  What are we paying for?  Did the City of Riverside sneak in the purple pipe project into the sewer master plan to get around Proposition 218 formalities?  If this is the case will the City of Riverside be set up for another Proposition 218 violation? I’m certainly beginning to feel as many in the community feel, that there “corruption” within the City of Riverside.

Remember, we are a City which owns are own public utilities, we own are water rights, we own the sewer.  So why should we pay for the purple pipe apparatus, whereby reclaimed will be sold at a profit and the taxpayer won’t directly benefit?

Some years back when Utilities Director Dave Wright was in charge, they tried to place a new charge on the taxpaying residents for the water reclamation program also known as the Purple Pipe Program.  The program never went through because there was never a direct benefit to the resident, a proposition 218 possible violation, and residents are wondering if this program was sneaked in the new Sewer Master Plan Project.  Tom Boyd mentioned at City Council that once the water reclamation is completed that we will be able to generate a revenue source from it.  Here’s a link to an article from Loudoun Water, which mentions the Membrane Bioreactor and it’s relationship to reclaimed water and the purple pipe.

Secondly, what appeared to be quite discerning, was when Davis questioned what appeared to be discrepancies in posting of accounting entries.  Whereby the post entry date was done first then the input date was done later, whereby it should be vise versa.  Further, there were several months between the entries which didn’t appear to comply with normal standard accounting.  According to Davis there was a significant number of backdated entries, not just one or two.  CFO Bret Mason explained it was a practice of closing the books for the fiscal year.  Fired former Construction Contracts Administer, Sean Gill brought this issue questioning how the city does contracts.  TMC did a story on this whereby checks were made fromFederal CDBG funds before expiration of those funds, then placed in a desk until they were needed.  Below is a document which appears to be post dated.

coverredarrows

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

“The city fired me when I tried to make people aware of their corruption. Its been going on for years. Brad Hudson, Siobhan Foster and Tom Boyd all deserve to be fired for their corruption along with half of the city council. People think Bell is corrupt, I hope they keep digging into the City of Riverside.”  Sean Gill, commented in the Press Enterprise back in May of 2011.

At a finance committee meeting on Wednesday May 14, 2014, Councilman Paul Davis asked the question at to why the staff seems to always go nuts every time we ask a question?  This is probably very telling.  Staff is not use to being ask relevant questions in TMC’s eyes and may construe this behavior indicative with interfering with city staffs work or creating a hostile work environment..  Thus, we now see two councilman who ask tough questions and are now being investigated.  Who are the suspects at the crux of this investigation?  Councilman Soubirous asked at this meeting that a Workshop Committee be formed, for the record, to look into a forensic audit by the State Controllers office.  Again, the appearance of this idea made everyone nervous.  If everything is on the up and up, why should anyone be nervous?

Residents in their district and all over the City of Riverside are calling the Councilman Heroes!  This is a big deal, National News Agencies are being contacted, and are keeping a close eye on the City of Riverside.  The majority or the residents will back up the forces of good which will challenge the forces that exist in the City of Riverside.  Many residents simply feel intimidated to challenge the forces of the City of Riverside, as many feel they will be targeted by Code Enforcement indirectly for frivolous charges, which will cost individual residents financially to much to fight.  That’s how the City wins.  More to come on this.

UPDATE: IS HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR RHONDA STROUT, A.K.A. LUXURY GIRL, LEAVING HER POSITION AT CITY HALL?

LuxGirl       23190_100000766422505_8061_n

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

LUXGIRL2

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE HUMAN RESOURCES BROCHURE.

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                                               

keithnelsonpic letterone  lettertwo  letterthree  letterfourletterfive

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

CITY CODE OF ETHICS NOT SO ETHICAL WHEN IT COMES TO CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND CITY HIRED ATTORNEY DOUG SMITH?

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.

1493020-327972687                     untitled

     Attorney Doug Smith             City Attorney Greg Priamo

Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied.

The main concern in question was the dual roles of the City Attorney’s Office acting as an advocate to the City, as well as a neutral counsel to the HRB (Human Resource Board.)   Also, City hired attorney Doug Smith materially misrepresenting himself to the Council on March 25, 2014.  Are Priamos and Smith liars?  Keith Nelson seems to think so, considering Smith’s actions most egregious.  Did Priamos tell Smith to lie to City Council of the findings of the Ethics and Conduct Hearing’s adjudicating body?  Currently, Priamos is writing a book on ethics.  The letter is as follows:

FROM THE DESK OF KEITH J. NELSON

April 29, 2014
Honorable Mike Soubirous
City of Riverside
3900 Mail Street
Riverside, CA. 92506

RE: Code of Ethics – J. Hunter v. Human Resources Board members

Dear Mr. Soubirous,

It was a pleasure speaking with you recently at the Boards and Commissions Annual Dinner. Unfortunately, my message today concerns a most troublesome matter. Let me begin by stating emphatically that this letter is not private. Instead, it is intended for you to share with your colleagues on the City Council, and whomever else you deem it contents would benefit. I would, in fact, read this letter into public comment at the next City Council meeting, but it would I’m certain exceed the three minute limitation allowed for such.

I will go off topic for just a moment and formally introduce myself in an effort to create clarity as to my interest and involvement in this matter. I am a 25+ year resident of Riverside who has endeavored to remain active in our community. As you may recall when you were running for Council, I contacted you to discuss your views and commitments on certain issues I feel important to our city. I have three adult children, plus one I am still raising here. I have been involved at many different levels with the city and surrounding area, including but not limited to: the Commission on Disabilities (chairman), Inland Regional Center (Board of Trustees), Team USA Special Olympics (coach), Special Olympics of Southern California (Regional Advisory Council), Regional Center (Business Committee), Arlington Little League (coach, Board of Directors), AYSO Region 47 soccer (founder, coach, Board of Directors), Poly High School Special Needs Boosters clubs, Poly High ROTC Boosters club…and more. I hope that this listing demonstrates my commitment to our community. I have always wanted to be proud of the city I live in.

To the matter at hand: I have served on a few Code of Ethics and Conduct adjudicating bodies (“AB”) during my tenure as the Chairman of the city’s Commission on Disabilities. I have always taken this responsibility extremely serious. If you were to review the administrative records of these hearings, I believe you would find that I often ask the most questions on the AB and deliberate issues of concern at substantial length. As a commissioner and member of an adjudicating body, I find our job comes with a multiple of masters: to our fellow citizens by striving to improve the city in which we live; and to the Council itself, representing our local government towards achieving the highest level of integrity.

Out of all the ethics hearings I have been involved with, the case involving Jason Hunter really bothers me the most from many perspectives. First, the role of the City Attorney’s office, throughout the entirely of the process, was deeply concerning. At the ethics hearing, we were instructed by the City Attorney’s office that it could both represent the city (Human Resource Board members, “HRB”) through outside counsel (Mr. Doug Smith) and serve as neutral counsel to the adjudicating body. We were also informed that the HRB members themselves would not be made available to the AB. As I consider the goal of our Code of Ethics and Conduct, established by our City Charter, is to provide both an actual and a perception of transparency, this dual role and lack of access to key parties is difficult to come to terms with. As such, I am left with the notion that our powers as finders of fact have been curtailed somewhat needlessly.

I have followed up on this matter in particular, because as an adjudicating body a definitive part of our final decision was to bring specific areas of conflict and concern within disciplinary hearings being run by our city staff to the attention of the City Council. My vote, in fact, was predicated on my motion to present said report to the Council (see minutes of December 13, 2013). To date, for reasons mostly unknown to me, this action has not been taken despite assurances of such from the AB Chairman, Mr. Justin Scott-Coe. I will elaborate more as I walk you through the ethics hearing from my perspective. I strongly believe that failing to address these core issues renders the entire Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process pointless, and wastes significant time on behalf of all parties involved.

Concerns:

•Limitation of Scope.  As an adjudicating body our ability to request information was virtually non-existent. We could not require testimony, subpoena documents nor investigate issues outside of the strict scope outlined by the City Attorney. And yet, we were presented by the city with no justification for this being so. I find these constraints overly burdensome, particularly in light of HRB counsel (Mr. Smith) materially misrepresenting to the Council at the March 25, 2014, appeal hearing that Mr. Hunter had the opportunity to present all evidence. This statement was simply untrue. In fact, many of my reservations during the ethics hearings themselves centered around the somewhat arbitrary limitations put on Mr. Hunter concerning evidence he could present and his ability to provide testimony, either his or other witnesses.

• Training of the Human Resources Board. Of the misrepresentations made to the Council by Mr. Smith, this was the most egregious. There is simply no nice way of stating this – he lied.  Astonishingly, Mr. Smith told the Council the exact opposite of what we concluded. The adjudicating body clearly and unequivocally stated that as a body we were to make a presentation to the Council regarding proper training of boards and commissions, specifically chairmen, and the need for more transparent hearing procedures written in a way such that the average citizen would feel confident in the process and how to present evidence.

Mr. Smith sat in attendance at both ethics hearings as we quite clearly and repeatedly made these points. There was also significant concern over the lack of engagement by non-chair members of the HRB at Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, and plain disregard for adherence to basic parliamentary procedure as evidenced in the video of this proceeding.

• Actions of the City Attorney.  After viewing the video of the disciplinary hearing in question, and even taking a month-long recess to absorb its meaning, we as an AB concluded, clearly and without reservation, that we were extremely uncomfortable with the actions and demeanor of the City Attorney, Mr. Greg Priamos. However, we were informed by the City Attorney’s office that this inappropriate behavior was out of the scope of our authority to review. Irrespective of such self-serving advice, our
concerns and observations must be brought to the attention of the City Council:

1. The City Attorney was seated in the middle of Council chambers (directly next to HRB Chairman, Mr. Norman Powell) at the disciplinary hearing, and not to the side as seated during regular Council meetings. This provides the visual that the City Attorney was indeed running the meeting. It should be noted that Mr. Priamos can be seen whispering advice to the Chair out of microphone reception throughout various points in the video.

2. The City Attorney responds out of order, not waiting to be recognized by the Chair and without being asked for comment time after time. It is noticeable that his pro-city/anti-Mr. Hunter recommendations to the Chair are followed unswervingly and without debate by the HRB. In one instance, Mr. Priamos even recommends a pause in the proceedings and leaves his seat before the Chair acknowledges his request.

3.In a disturbing revelation made after the conclusion of Mr. Hunter’s ethics complaint hearings, Mr. Scott-Coe admitted to the AB that he had met privately with City Attorney, Mr. Priamos, just prior to the meeting to discuss the hearing in general, and the limits on presentation of evidence and testimony. If the goal our Code of Ethics and Conduct complaint process is full transparency, those instructions should have been made to the entire AB in an open forum. In fact, Mr. Priamos’ involvement at all at that juncture, in light of his behavior at the disciplinary hearing is perplexing. Additionally, the rules of Ethics Hearings should be made public, and properly vetted as such.

4. At the first ethics hearing, held on November 15, 2013, the AB discovered that Mr. Hunter had provided the city with a detailed list of objections and motions concerning the ethics hearing protocols provided to him by the City Attorney’s office, prior to the AB convening. Without delving into these individually, I found it unsettling that the AB was not made aware of the existence of this list until the onset of the hearing, leaving us unprepared to tackle the issues and without justification from the City Attorney’s office regarding their merits.

5. As it is not clear who wrote the rules for Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing, it is unknown who made the decision for the HRB to deliberate in secret with the City Attorney at the conclusion of the presentation of the city’s case. Following, the actions of the HRB taken in this private setting were not announced later to the public. As such the AB could not determine how or why the HRB made its findings or determinations.

It was the general feeling of the AB that certain city staff, including the City Attorney’s office, might have been in violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct throughout the disciplinary process. However, once again, this was ruled outside the scope of our review by whatmight-be-considered a conflicted City Attorney’s office. Of grave concern were the delays by the city in providing Mr. Hunter with notices and rules, as well as access to particular evidence to provide an adequate defense.

We sincerely question the duality of roles played within the City Attorney’s office (as active advocate and neutral counsel to the HRB) during Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. Although we were assured this is standard operating procedure, we find the practice debatable as to its fairness. Again, this matter was ruled outside of scope of our investigation.
In conclusion, the true and accurate findings of the AB were misrepresented to the City Council and the mandated presentation per our unanimously-carried motion was never presented. These factors were paramount to my final vote. I don’t believe anyone was comfortable with what they saw transpiring on the video of Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary hearing. It was one of the rare times I was actually embarrassed by our city’s actions.

This is not how I envision a City committed to Arts and Innovation, as well as progressive visions of open and transparent governance, conducts itself. Our presentation absolutely should have been made prior the Council hearing the appeal of our decision carried forth by Mr. Hunter in order to have the Council fully educated.

Further, I am at a loss as to why the AB was not informed individually of the Council appeal hearing on this subject. If in attendance, I would have used the public comment period to rebuke the misleading statements made by the HRB attorney.

This letter is only a high level summary of this matter, provided in an effort to induce open dialog and independent investigation of the facts surrounding both Mr. Hunter’s disciplinary and ethics hearings, as well as the nature of these proceedings in general.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at your convenience. At this point, the highest motivation should be to provoke meaningful change as to how the city conducts its business in these regards.
Sincerely yours,

Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D.

 

Currently, there is an ethics complaint on appeal with Councilman Steve Adams, whereby Attorney Doug Smith is representing him, and City Attorney Greg Priamos is the legal advisor for the City.  Should we expect the same favorable outcome in a decision by the Adjudicating Body, even though a licensed Attorney hired by the City has been called to the forefront as lying?  There have been more than two Ethics Complaints filed against Councilman Steve Adams, all which have been unfounded.  The current complaint, which is in on appeal, contains evidence not reviewed by the Adjudicating Body.  Evidence which displays that Adams witnessed corruption in the City of Riverside on several occasions which can be construed as “undo influence.”  Regardless, is this whole Ethics Complaint process a formality and a sham?  Set up by those in positions of power to direct a favorable result?  If that is true, do we have corruption?  Should the taxpayer be reimbursed for Attorney Doug Smith’s fees and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California?  Should City Attorney Greg Priamos be fired and a complaint filed with the State Bar of California?

UPDATE: CITY MANAGER: OKAY MR. BARBER, WHO IS RUNNING THE STORE?  This Press Enterprise clipping was sent to TMC to show that in this instance, who is watching out for taxpayer monies?  This clipping shows a Public Notice by the AQMD for a refund amount of $1,407.91 that the City of Riverside has failed to recover in care of the taxpayer.

AQMD%20Refund%204-2014%20001

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question that residents are asking as the one who submitted it, who’s running the store?  That should be City Manager Scott Barber.  So I’m guessing the City really doesn’t need the money, I believe it could still be put to good use for library books, park programs etc.  You may get use to seeing figures with a lot of zeros, but all monies are important, no matter the amount.

UPDATE: BROCKTON STREET RESTRIPING:  ACCORDING THE RIVESIDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED MAY 19, 2014 TO AUGUST 2014.  The City will be transforming the four lane main arterial commuter route to one lane in both direction for vehicles, and the other two for bikes…  I guess Mayor Bailey and Councilman Mike Gardner think we a Seattle, Washington.  Wood Street residents are not happy as this one resident John Zavesky commented.

Well it looks like Brockton is going to be reduced to a single lane of traffic in each direction so those hundreds of bike riders will have their own lane. This is one house that will not be voting for the current mayor come next election. Between this and the City Council renaming 1/2 a mile of Central Ave. “Riverside Plaza Ave.” these elected officials have clearly proven they aren’t interested in dealing with real social issues such as addressing a responsible solution to the ever growing numbers of homeless folks. That would be working on something socially responsible, a job that is obviously beyond the current crop of elected talking heads.

brocklane

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Traffice and commuter frustration is at a peak, with the 91 freeway contruction at 14th and Central, the Cridge Bridge not yet done, the new underpass construction at Riverside Avenue and now a reconstruction of Brockton Avenue to a bike lane?  What are the knuckleheads at City Hall thinking.

streetcar5 copy6

There’s more folks, there is study currently on regarding the conversion of Magnolia Avenue to a Commuter Train/Trolley route, one of Mayor Bailey’s ideas.

We must remember that culture can’t be constructed, designed or constructed such some idealist at City Hall envision it.  Culture is born, it is nurtured by the characteristics of the people of that community to become a city which reflects a theme, not by design, but by the working spirit of that community.

UPDATE: CITY WI-FI TO BE REMOVED!  According to the Press Enterprise the City Wi-Fi system will be removed because it’s not working, but if you live in Riverside, you will know that it never worked.  Even when the Measure A campaign was in full mode the City was telling the community that if the measure doesn’t pass, we will be eliminated alone with the funding source of $770,000.00 in funds.  Below is a copy of the handout that was given at the Goeske Senior Center to Vote Yes on Measure A, or else lose programs.

jgflyer

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Even during the City’s campaign on Measure A they knew it didn’t work.  Money continued to be pumped into the program that just could not get off the ground.  The City’s response was that it was taken down because it was never designed for mobile use.  Originally, the city wi-fi was designed for internet access, such as lap tops and home computers.  According to residents it never worked.  But wi-fi is a no brainer, it’s not rocket science, you connect to your location, done.  The No on Measure A campaign tried to warn the community of these informational nuances, but still lost.  Again, much waste at a cost to the taxpayer, at the salvaging of egos.

UPDATE: PRESS RELEASE: INVESTIGATION CLEARS RPD LEADERSHIP OF ALL ALLEGATIONS?  Amazingly, the law firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse does it again, clearing RPD in any wrong doing with regards to misappropriations of funds through Federally funded Police Asset Forfeiture Program.  It wasn’t to long ago that the City hired them for a measley $150,000.00 to investigate the allegations of fired employees, accusing former City Manager Brad Hudson of preferential contract awarding.  Yes Diaz and Vicino, you would have to waive your rights, unless you paid out of your pocket for the investigation?  If that is not the case it was public taxpayer money, so the investigation is public. TMC brought allegations of Asset Forfeiture misuse back during the Chief Russ Leach years.  In this case the law firm was hired to investigate and make legal opinion on the use of Federal Asset-Forfeiture funds.  That’s fine, anyone can do that, but there opinion doesn’t hold legal water, since the Federal government in the only entity which can make that determination.

AFONE          AFTWO

CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE PDF VERSION

Our concerns with the above documents were when Federal Asset Forfeiture monies were utilized for community programs such as the Multi Cultural Youth Program, a Mayor Loveridge originated Community Program, that appeared to have support through Federal Police Asset Funds.  Illegal?  To the tune of $35,000.00.  This at the time, Chief Russell Leach was in charge, and this amount of $35,000.00 was donated or transferred to his wife, Connie Leach’s runned Multi Cultural Youth Organization…  We asked the DA himself Paul Zellerbach to look into this but all he told us was “Is this Illegal? or just bad Business?”  This while his subordinates flipped through a DA file which contained TMC articles.  Then the people who brought forward the issue and the document were now in the questioning box.  Why was that, I ask? Is it because the City of Riverside held the trump card for the DA?  If this in fact was the case, what did Ms. Aquino know?  Why didn’t she speak out years ago?  Was she protecting the office of RPD?  Was she protecting people within RPD?  We can only suspect her actions to be in the category of quite remarkable..

Investigation Clears Riverside Police Leadership of All Major Allegations

Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino Waive Privacy Rights, Agree to Disclosure

DIAZ         v

                       CHIEF DIAZ                 ASST. CHIEF VINCINO

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – City Manager Scott Barber announced today that an independent investigation has refuted all major allegations that Police Chief Sergio Diaz and Assistant Chief Chris Vicino improperly used Police Department funds, as alleged by a former administrator.
Barber made the announcement after both Diaz and Vicino relinquished their rights to confidentiality in connection with the investigation. Both men said they made the decision because they wanted the public to know the results of the investigation, even though one allegation against Vicino was sustained. Otherwise, the results could not have been made public under the law.
I appreciate Chief Diaz and Assistant Chief Vicino taking the step they did in order to ensure that the public can know that its police administrators are running the department in an ethical and proper manner,” Barber said. “I am gratified that the public can have a full accounting of the allegations and the ensuing investigation.”
Of eight allegations raised by former Police Administrator Karen Aquino, seven were found to be unfounded. In the only sustained allegation, Aquino alleged that Vicino used a city copier for personal reasons and implied that he asked another employee for the employee’s access code in order to make additional color copies for personal use.
During the investigation, Vicino acknowledged making about 300 copies during a three-year period in connection with a college course he taught. He said he sent a letter to an Assistant City Manager expressing regret for the oversight and pledging it would not happen again and enclosed payment for $30.50. The part of the allegation involving Vicino allegedly asking for an employee’s access code so he could make color copies for his personal use was found to be unfounded.
Vicino told investigators he did ask another employee for the access code to the color copier, but only because he had forgotten his access code and needed to make color copies for a presentation that Diaz was going to do on a new strategic plan for the department.
I have always had faith that an impartial investigation would reveal that this department is run according to the highest ethical standards,” Vicino said. “I regret using the copier for a personal use, but I’m willing to take my medicine out in the open if that is what it takes for the larger issues to be resolved in the minds of the public.”
Other allegations explored in the investigation included:

  • That the department misappropriated city funds by directing employees to participate in Riverside Police Foundation activities while on duty. The foundation, which supports youth programs, is part of the Department’s mission to prevent crime, therefore use of city resources was appropriate, the investigation found.
  • That Vicino engaged in disrespectful and intimidating behavior toward Ms. Aquino. Vicino did not intentionally engage in such behavior and his response was a direct reaction to statements made by Aquino toward another employee during a meeting, the investigation found.
  • That the Department improperly used asset forfeiture funds to purchase vehicles. The investigation found no evidence that either Diaz or Vicino used such funds improperly.
  • That the Department failed to follow the requirements of a $5.1 million federal grant to hire 15 new police officers. The investigation found no evidence to support that.
  • That police administrators failed to notify Aquino that a city vehicle and gas card were used by a retired police employee to help the department participate in the “Baker to Vegas” charity run. There is no evidence to suggest the car or gas card were used inappropriately and department administrators had no obligation to notify Aquino of the pending use.
  • That Aquino was directed to pay for golf tournaments out of the department’s general fund and that thousands of dollars were spent so that Vicino and others could play golf. Aquino was describing charity golf tournaments that department personnel participated in to assist local organizations in raising funds for children’s programs. Investigators described this allegation as “a significant stretch from the truth.”
  • That Diaz signed a contract for a Parole and Corrections Team without proper review of the City Attorney’s Office. The investigation found that this allegation “lacked any validity whatsoever” and that the memorandum of understanding was signed by all appropriate parties.

UPDATE: AND UPDATE THAT IS NOT REALLY AN UPDATE!  WE TOLD YOU SO! SEWER RATES GOING UP!  THE REAL STORY AHEAD!

SENT IN BY SHARON MATEJA, IS THE AMERICAN EAGLE VULTURE JUST THE RIGHT THING TO CLEAR THE WOOD STREETS OF THE COYOTE PROBLEM?

image003

My Mom called me around 7pm and told me that she was sitting on her back patio and looked down to where her dog was playing on the grass and there stood a coyote. She quickly called her little dog and thankfully Sadie her dog came running up to the patio. The coyote just stood there. My Mom was a safe distance from it being that her patio overlooks the medical center and the RCC ball field. She lives on Rice Rd. The problem is that this is the second time my folks have had a run in with the coyotes and both times have been in broad daylight. My parents have a fence all the way around their property and my Dad walked the perimeter the first time they sited the coyote and there was one area where it looked like the coyote dug under the fence. He patched it up and thought they were safe. They have a little Boston terrier and now they are afraid to let her out. I am afraid for my folks because there is the garage and a room under their house that they use on a daily basis. Can anyone offer any advise on what they can do? We are really afraid now that the coyote has been back twice.   – Julie Sparkman, Wood Streets

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