Posted: November 13, 2012 in Uncategorized

We couldn’t help but wonder what may have occurred behind the closed doors of the Mayor’s chamber..did Priamos apologize profusely for his actions to the Mayor?  or was the Mayor angry and lectured Priamos? We couldn’t help but imagine…

or does the mayor have a special “apology” key on his laptop in which he command one to apologize when politically necessary?

The following is the play by play apology given publicly, not for the public, but to the Council and the Mayor:

Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council.

First I’d like to take this opportunity to express my sincere apologies for the issues and distractions that my actions may have caused over the last several weeks.  Second, I would like to address the letter from the RPOA to the mayor and council.  Unfortunately Brian Smith, the president of RPOA, did not speak before he wrote and sent that letter. Brian and I spoke last evening and we discussed the call I received from the Press Enterprise.  I advised him that it was never my intention nor would I ever want to create an issue from this incident.  I also advised him that I made a brief comment to the officer on the way out of the chambers that afternoon.  I advised  him that my first notice that anything was in the police report was the call from the press enterprise.  I also advised him that I was not suggesting nor would I suggest that the officer did not have cause to act.

He apologized for not calling me before sending that letter.  He stated that he did not believe for a moment that I directed the officer to arrest Ms. Wright.  I apologized  for this unfortunate situation.  And I advised him that I would not want to harm the relationship with the officers of my client department of which I worked so hard to develop over these past 20 years.  I also advised him that I very much valued my relationship with the RPD and it’s officers.  At the end of our discussion, he said that he considered this matter closed as far as the RPOA is concerned.  And He and I agreed to speak in the future,  if there was ever a problem or an issue.  Third, I would like to clarify that any City Manager, senior city staff or any elected official directed me to speak with the officer following the afternoon meeting  on October  23rd regarding  Ms. Wright.  Finally it was never my intention to cause any complications or problems, and for that, I sincerely apology.


First, what I found quite discerning was Priamos’s continued use of the term “advised.”  He was always “advising”, now let’s not forget this is an apology, and he is now “advising” the president of RPOA, Brian Smith, of how it is.  I found it condenscending.  The term “advised” in Webster’s can have a number of different conatations such as:  admonish, advocate, caution, charge, commend, counsel, direct, dissuade, encourage, enjoin, exhort, forewarn, give a pointer, give a tip, guide, instruct, kibitz, level with, move, opine, point out, preach, prepare, prescribe, prompt, put bug in ear, put in two cents, recommend, steer, suggest, tout, update, urge, and warn.  So if you are now buddies with Smith, wouldn’t the conversation be on equal and amical terms?

Second, this apology was made toward the Mayor and Council…why wasn’t there an apology to Officer Sahagun? Or the RPOA? Or Ms. Karen Wright? Or to the community of Riverside for another nation wide City Hall public relations debacle?  So now will the charges be dropped against Ms. Wright?  After all it just appears now to be just a big misunderstanding… but again, was this only an apology to the mayor and council for publicly embarrassing them?  Or should they all on the daiz apologize to each other, since they all had something to say which was quite inaccurate to begin with.  Shouldn’t the mayor, council and city attorney simply take responsibility?  Taking responsibility would be an action that would heal the community, and that we would never see.  An apology would be an action of admitting guilt, and that certainly would not be tolerated by the City Hall moguls.  Transparency takes a back seat for now, at least for the City Attorney, the Mayor and some Council members.

Thirdly, I find it quite remarkable that in this apology, the community still doesn’t have a transparent answer as to what really happened.  You would think after this “rant”, oops that’s a term used for gadflys.  Let’s try it again.  You would think after his sincere apology, he would find it appropriate to drop the charges against Ms. Wright.

Fourthly, if the City Manager nor any of the elected officials was responsible for giving Priamos the directive, than why hide under “attorney-client” privilege?  Who was the client if you were solely responsible for the directive given to Officer Sahagun?  You certainly cannot be both the “attorney” and “client” at the same time.  But if you are not completely forthcoming with your response, we must certainly ascertain that your “client”, is the Mayor and and those on the council.  Regardless, the community is still not buying it.

Now, this was not Officer’s Nick Sahagun’s first time lending police security to Council Meetings, he was a familiar figure to all, and by all considered a nice guy, even the gadfly’s like him.  So you must understand that his behavior that day was considerably unusual and out of the ordinary.  Priamos again continues to skew this issue and has yet, in the name of transparency, has refused to give an explanation what he exactly said to Officer Sahagun.  But to call Officer Sahagun’s police report “inaccurate” is not only wreckless, but states that the officer was lying.  Lying on a police report is a criminal act.  If that is true, why haven’t charges been brought up against Officer Sahagun?

I must say that every time an elected or staff official speaks the greater the mystery becomes, more holes than what you find in block of swiss cheese.

RPOA Brian Smith responded to the city’s accusation of inaccuracy in a police report by spewing off a fiery response letter, now the City Attorney and RPOA President are best friends.  What is it?  Does Priamos want to keep his police radio, emergency police lights and siren in his vehicle?  What political prowess entered into the equation between City Hall moguls and RPOA President in order to drastically change the perception?

Brian you have nothing to apologize for, the city was throwing one of your officers under the bus and responded as you should have.  We are not even sure if Priamos is telling us the truth about you apologizing, since he never really tells the truth to begin with.  From our perspective he was only “advising” you.  With that said, I’ll leave it at that.


First, when Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, he is calling that officer a 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 for Officer Sahagun 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.

Secondly, Smith calls Priamos on his reckless use of invoking “attorney-client” privilege, when the press asked for a response.  Smith also assumes by Priamos hiding under “attorney-client” privilege, the client must be Officer Sahagun or one if not all of the elected on the dais.  Each time Priamos opens his mouth or doesn’t open his mouth, the questions of his “inaccuracies” become evident.

Thirdly, as Smith states, “the new protocol established empowering the official holding the gavel (mayor or mayor pro temp) being the determinate factor in where there will be police involvement is not good business.”   But Chief Sergio Diaz will be at the next City Council November 13 presenting and explaining the new protocol in decorum, and after all that has happened , Diaz appears not to find what he will present odd..

Now, I’ll tell you, how Priamos and Smith became buddies after these choice words is quite remarkable, after all the letter was quite to the point, and gave some insight to past City Hall antics.  A damaging letter?  Of course, we must mitigate a public relations nightmare by a surgical dose of damage control.  Did Priamos decide it would be in the best interest of his clients, the council and mayor, that he’d take care of this issue before it reaches an uncontrollable level?  Or did the mayor and some council members just simply told him to take care of it?

If Priamos took it personally upon himself to tell the officer to take care of it.  Shouldn’t Priamos be fired?  But on the other hand, it’s quite possible that the mayor may have had something do with this, because the mayor is solely responsible, and always have been, for directives regarding the control of city council meetings.  The chief of police bringing in new rules now appears to be ludicrous.  Rules have always been in place.  Another diversion tactic by the mayor to spin blame and deviate from responsibility?

Questions arise and continue to arise because of the City’s problematic acceptance of transparency, creating an inundation of possible scenarios of what actually happened.  But for most of us who have simply read the writing on the wall, the chain of events appear quite evident.  But for now, I guess we should just say thank-you Priamos for that sort of heart felt apology, but again, if this was some sort of great misunderstanding, shouldn’t you have included in your apology, an apology to Ms. Karen Wright and then drop the charges?

Dan Berstein of the Press Enterprise makes this whole debacle a game show, “To tell the truth!”  We now ask, “Will the real mayor please stand up!”

UPDATE: 11/13/2012: THE CROSS WAS BOSS AT TONIGHTS CITY COUNCIL  With over 300 people in attendance, council doors were closed early.  The City made room outside the council chambers with chairs and a flat screen television, even the cafeteria area of City Hall was utilized with more flat screen t.v.’s to accomadate the issue of the cross on Mt. Rubidoux.

It appears a group from Washington D.C. questioned Riverside’s cross on Mt. Rubidoux as a religious symbol, and states that it violates the first ammendment by crossing the line between the issue of seperation of church and state.  The question is should we litigate it in court, donate it to a foundation or sell it to a private entity who will maintain the property.  The issue is not over, the council Voted to discuss this issue more in depth with community imput.  Litigation would be a costly choice.  The question of what benefit does this group filing this law suit get if won, is unknown.




  1. Jim Thompson says:

    A sincere apology isn’t enough for you, is it? You want blood. The problem I have with you and your ilk is that NOBODY is good enough to be governing the city of Riverside. All I have heard from you and your friends is criticism. “Our elected representatives can’t do their jobs, they are dishonest, they throw old ladies to the floor and handcuff them.” Do you think the public takes this stuff seriously? For Heaven’s sake, get a life! There is a job of governing being done by good people in spite of your obstructionism.

    • Scott says:

      To Jim:
      Thanks for joining in and putting your thoughts out there. All I had to do was look at my waterbill go up each year since 2007. I looked into it. I did the conservation thing. I also found city documentation that we are not experiencing water shortages. We have and have had plenty of water for consumption in our city due to over a hundred and forty years of landowner investment in the infrastructure. So why do we have punitive four-tier pricing and 50% base price increases. Are these legal fees for service? Could much of this be illegal taxation?
      If it is all fees to recover the cost of providing the service, what are we spending the additional $25 million on every year?? How much cash was transfered to the general fund?
      What in the constitution or law allows this??
      I found that since 1996 the state Constitution has Prohibited water utility revenue transfers to the general fund. Yes, it is illegal to take cash out of the utility and spend it on general government expenses. There is case law on this issue too. Yes, other cities have been sued by their residents for unconstituional pricing of water and transfering the cash to the general fund. Several similar cases are filed in the state each year, The State Supreme Court upheld the city of Fresno case late in 2005 and issed the Bighorn Desert Valley View case in July 2006. So why in Oct 2006 did our city raise water rates 50% and implement the punitive tiered pricing on your bill??
      Who was in a position of high power at the city in 1996 and in 2006 and still today? Mayor Luv comes to mind!
      1997, the Supreme Court ordered all local governments operating water utilities (who wished to continue the practice of cash transfers to the general fund) to place the general fund transfer issue on the ballot before November 1998 as a new special tax, Our city did not do this so, they gave up the lawful transfer of utility revenue to the general fund! But they didn’t stop transfering the cash and they continued to report the general fund transfers in every audit and annual budget. Why did the Mayor allow this? Who gave him legal advice? Did any of this get discussed with the Council? Why has the council continued to approve budgets based upon illegal tax revenue and illegal general fund transfers?? Could it have been the current and past heads of the utility department, city manager, city finance office, city attorney??
      We live in a city based upon corruption. A house of cards teetering on disaster.
      If you took the oath of office to be the Mayor or city attorney or city manager or be a city employee, you pledge to uphold the state constitution amoung other things. Why would you decide to violate that pledge and continue the illegal general fund transfers? If you did so and four years later got re-elected and took the oath a second time wiith knowledge that you had violated the constitutions prohibition on utiltiy general fund transfers and intended and actually proposed and approved a budget continuing the practice; you just committed perjury! As in felony perjury!
      Now you had knowledge since 1996 that the practice must be approved by the voters as a new special tax and you choose not to do it. Rather you let the illegal prafctice continute to funnel millions of dollars each year into the general fund for general expenses. You write in city documents that it is not a harm until you get sued… you’ve been doing it for years and no one has filed suit. You the city uses the federal mail to send out unlawful uitlity bills with unlawful hidden taxes in them and receive the payments by mail. I believe that is called Mail Fraud, a federal crime. Do you still think good people are running our city?

  2. thirtymiles says:

    Jim, Thank-you for your comment. The GP apology was not sincere. If you don’t like what we write then don’t read our blog. See you at CC tonight at 6:30 pm. Thank-you again Vivian.

  3. Jim Thompson says:

    When someone gives you a dose of your own medicine, you see how it feels. You don’t like to be criticized, but you feel it is your duty to criticize others. You might try being a little more considerate. Other people have feelings too.

    By the way, what happened to freedom of speech here? You don’t like my comments, so you would like to suppress them. I served in the United States Army to protect your rights. Where did you serve?

  4. Hi Jim,

    I had a problem with Priamos’ “sincere” apology because I’m not sure who he’s apologizing for when he issued it. I can guess but I have a couple ideas. But I don’t think it was on his own behalf. His two primary responsibilities in his words are the following:

    1) to protect the city council and mayor

    2) to protect the city from civic liability or minimize the risk.

    The problem was that he’s apologizing most likely to honor #1 but his actions which probably weren’t self-directed compromised or violated #2. The reason being the police report stated that he told the officer to “stop” her specifically. Not any person who violates the time limit but her. While legally there may be “time place and manner” restrictions on free speech they can’t be content based. Meaning that a person who praises the city gets to speak longer than one who criticizes it before either face consequences.

    I think it came because those on the dais weren’t upset when the news was just confined to Riverside. But when it spread across the nation and then overseas to Europe then that started getting embarrassing. Also I believed that RPOA President Brian Smith’s letter pushed him in that direction as it came not long before the apology. The problem is Smith’s attitude which he displayed in his letter was one that should have been adopted by the city council and mayor but that didn’t happen.

    Yet all week the city council and mayor said it was the officer’s call that he made on his own discretionary powers. No one said that the CA (who works at will for them). Did they not know? Did some or one of them know and not others? They looked absolutely stupid that whole week. Fortunately a couple of them came to their senses and started looking towards proactive action.

    It’s my chosen civic duty to be vigilant of what my local government does because the decisions they make including on the money they will spend including on the “loan” to the Hyatt Hotel which will probably leave us either trying to sell it ourselves or come up with $28 million to pay it off. Then there’s the “four way” land swap that would have had the police department and RPU paying much higher “rent” (with the RPD going from $1/annually to $1.3 million plus $700,000K in relocation costs). This was done primarily to assist a private development project pay off its own bonds and a law firm that was likely encouraged by the city to break its lease leaving the city to pick it up to avoid getting sued for interfering in the exercise of a legal contract.

    I’m supposed to be considerate and not criticize this type of back room deal type of crap? Sorry dude but you better believe I’m going to speak out on it. I lost my great uncle who was a POW in WWII and then died on the Arisan Maru when he was only 32. He served in the Army Medical Corps out of Ohio though he was from Minnesota. My grandfathers, his brothers, cousins, my father all served. I’ve got cousins and step cousins who’ve been to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    They and others fought so one of the most important of all rights, the right to redress a government even to criticize them is a protected right. I always feel thankful that I can do that and just get insulted some times (though being threatened isn’t nice) but it’s not like other places.

    So yeah, I feel obligated to exercise my power of free speech because if I don’t then I feel in a sense that his death was for nothing. Because that war was to fight for people in different countries to speak out including criticizing their government when they felt it was necessary. If people don’t do that then nothing will ever change. Societies that grow to wage war for world domination often suppress free speech first. I don’t think I need to tell you why. Sometimes they do it softly first like saying, it’s a waste of time, do something else or they laugh at you. But often that evolves to more severe forms of suppression as we’ve all seen. From acorns, the largest oaks grow and so it’s with evil dictatorships and regimes. All of them started small and grew from there.

    Riverside’s not a parallel to that but it’s still important to keep politicians honest and on their toes. At least in my opinion. I never called them names, never made it personal and unfortunately a couple of them mostly gone screamed at me in public, called me liars and such. I don’t expect people like you to think that civility goes both ways. But I’ve always been more civil to them than some of them have treated me for criticizing them or having a difference of opinion.

    As for needing to have a life. I have one thanks. No need to worry about that! That’s just some line that people throw out as a parting shot when they have nothing to say dealing with the issue at hand.

    Everybody knows that.

    Best Wishes, Mary

  5. Judy says:

    Hi jim,

    When you feel the need to publicly speak out about your concerns for this City (or any other), and you criticize the actions or words of others, you also put yourself in a possition to be criticized. Bringing your concerns about anything that is going on at City Hall and in the City in general Is what the 3 minute “Come down and give an opinion” is all about. Wether the Mayor, council members, or Mr Priamos, agree or disagree what is said, doen’t matter. It is the right of the citizens, and might I add the very people who put them in office. They very quickly forget they work for US, and quickly change into the typical elected self serving, all about me, elected.

    If you looked and reviewed the video of what happened or were watching the council meeting that night you would have notice that no one on the dias looked surprised at what had just happened. The circus act that followed, with certain council people running out and others watching with a half smile, made it obvious to see that this was planned ahead of time, using Ms Wright as an example of what happens if you do not comply! Not one person on the dias had the decensey to stand up and put a stop to what was going on. None of them showed any compassion or concern for a fellow Human being, who was being pulled and pushed and in obvious pain, and these are the same people we want running this city? Don’t fool yourself, they would have no problem at all siliencing You or anyone else is that same manner. There bias against Ms right was obvious and the mayor going on afterward with his comments under is breath for all to hear was just as disgusting. To top off the entired incident by blaming a RPD officer, was yet another “point the finger” stragity that seems to be a favorite response. So how much $ did Mr. Priamos get for taking the heat? Or maybe his name was pullled out of the hat, or he pullled the shortet straw?

    Have you ever wondered why these so called gadflys, ( the use of the term is disgraceful) or critic’s of the mayor and certain council, who come down most Tuesday’s and resort to expressing thier opinion’s. Look at the disrepect they recieve from almost all of the dias. Eyes rolling, talking with the person next them, texting, and in his most glourous moment yet, Mayor elect Rusty taking a cat nap. These people have done what our city ask them to do! them come down and never get an answer to questions. Why they were put out of business, in a City that doen’t have enough jobs, shops, or restraunts. Why some people are allowed contract business or management positions that every other citizen is not even aware is available. The good old boy and worse yet the mafia style threats so many business people are being subjected to, thrown out of there buildings, having to close thier shops. These same buildings are sitting downtown empty, when they could be supplying business and most important, revenue for this city. I guess when councilman Gardner is up for re-election, he’ll start up those same old campaign promises and then tell us after he’s back in that he ha no intention of going through with any of them. But then he comented that Karin Wright “got what she deserved” or somethng to that effect. True qualification for the elected officials in the City.

    So you see Jim, they are getting the same respect back as they have given! And let’s go back to “THEY WORK FOR US” we pay thier wage! They chose to run for a PUBLIC SERVICE POSITION, no one twisted thier arms either. They are all self serving, dishonest, unethical, individuals with no integrety, who will destroy anyone who gets in thier way. The day will come when they will have to answer for thier actions. What they allowed to happed to Karin Wright, was not just humiliating and of the utmost disgrace, It was a sin against another human, and that punshiment will most certainly come from our creator.

  6. Jackie says:

    The Laws were made for all to follow but it seems the City Attorney can violate a citizens rights with nothing but a fake apology. Just think of those thousands in jail for breaking the Law and wish all they had to do was apologize. Bernie Madoff would be first to apologize to get out of jail. But this City Attorney has a history of doing what he wants and lucky got to blame others over the many years. As a foot soldier for the enter circle of the Mayor and now Bailey don’t expect change or Justice. Life lessons are you get back 7 times what you give out and this should be an interesting year of 2013. A Mayor elected to office under a cloud of investigations and charges of ethics violation and a City Attorney who lied about an honest police officer. Well at lease Mayor Loveridge and the City Attorney made national news as the clip of Karen being hand cuffed for speaking over 3 mins. went out all over even if the Mayor thinks it didn’t. My sister in Florida called me about the clip shown on her news as well the the NY Police officer giving a homeless man boots.

  7. City Attorney Greg Priamos and his colleagues at the City have taken an oath to obey the US Constitution; however, these so-called public servants have been behaving as if there is no longer a Constitution to obey and acting as if Riverside was a mini-dictatorship. A prime example of Priamos’ disregard for the Constitution is his ordering that a citizen be arrested for speaking more than three minutes in a recent City Council meeting, a flagrant violation of the citizen’s First Amendment Right to free speech, which is concurrently a flagrant violation of Priamos’ oath of office. I believe that his apology is too little too late. Therefore, he should be either resign or be fired from his position as City Attorney, effective immediately.

    On a different but related note, Interim Code Enforcement Manager Gary Merk and his colleagues in the Code Enforcement Department have been terrorizing thousands of Riverside residents under the color of law. They have been targeting homes belonging to African-Americans and other minorities, vacant homes, homes whose owners are unable to maintain their yard and swimming pool and homes where their owners are storing personal belonging outdoors. Further, Code Enforcement Officers have been citing these homes for so-called violations of laws, levying fees on amounting to more than $100,000 on these homes and demanding payments from those economically-depressed homeowners. And, when such arbitrary fees are not paid, they have been imposing a mechanics’ lien on these homes. Through their cloud and slander of title, these tyrants have been making it impossible for these unsuspecting homeowners to sell their homes, negotiate short sales, and/or enter into loan modification arrangements with their respective lenders so as to avoid foreclosures. If you are a minority have been the victims of this criminal scam, I would love to hear from you. We have been working on a federal class action lawsuit to stop Priamos, Merk, Lisa Anhorn, Caleb Enriquez, Patricia Roberts and other Code Enforcement Officers from terrorizing thousands of Riverside residents under the color of law and under the color of authority in violation of their oath of office. If you are one of the victims of this criminal scheme, please contact Louis either by email at or via telephone at (951) 897-1691.

  8. By: Louis J. Jean-Louis, A Freelance Writer

    Terrorism Of A Different Kind In Riverside City, Its Code Enforcement Department

    City Attorney Greg Priamos and his colleagues at the City of Riverside have taken an oath to obey the US Constitution; however, these so-called public servants have been behaving as if there is no longer a Constitution to obey and acting as if Riverside were a quasi-dictatorship. A prime example of City Attorney Greg Priamos’ utter disregard for the Constitution and his totalitarian stance is his ordering that a citizen be arrested for speaking more than three minutes in a recent City Council meeting. Priamos’ action constitutes a violation of the citizen’s First Amendment Right to free speech, which is concurrently a flagrant violation of his oath of office.  The majority of people polled following the incident opined that his apology is too little too late. Therefore, Priamos, they further said, should either resign or be fired from his position as City Attorney, effective immediately.

    On a different but related note, Interim Code Enforcement Manager Gary Merk and his colleagues in the Riverside Code Enforcement Department have been terrorizing thousands of Riverside residents under the color of law.  In furtherance of a criminal scheme in concert with some of the major banks, including JPMorgan Chase, N.A., Riverside Code Enforcement Officers have been roaming the streets of the city and targeting homes belonging to African-Americans and other minorities, vacant homes, homes whose owners are unable to maintain their yard and swimming pool and homes where their owners are storing personal belongings outdoors.  Further, these Officers have been citing these homes for so-called violations of laws, levying fees  amounting to more than $100,000 on some of these homes and demanding payments from those economically-depressed homeowners. And, when such arbitrary payments and fees are not paid, they have been imposing mechanics’ liens on these homes, thereby knowingly or unknowingly working in collaboration with some of the major banks that are, in many cases,  illegally foreclosing on thousands of those homes. Through their cloud and slander of title, these co-conspirators have been making it impossible for these unsuspecting homeowners to sell their homes, negotiate short sales and/or enter into loan modification arrangements with their respective lenders…so as to avoid foreclosures. To one degree or another, hundreds, if not thousands, of Riverside homeowners have been caught in this web of deception:  a criminal enterprise working in Code Enforcement with the consent and approval of City Attorney Priamos’ Office and the City Council Members. If you are a minority and have been one of the victims of this criminal scam, I would love to hear from you and include your story in a series of articles being prepared for publication in the coming months.  Some of these victims have been preparing a federal class action lawsuit to stop Priamos, Merk, Lisa Anhorn, Caleb Enriquez, Patricia Roberts and other Riverside City Officials and Code Enforcement Officers from terrorizing thousands of Riverside residents under the color of law and under the color of authority…all their activities in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, their oath of office and the established rights of the people whose interests they are supposedly serving. 

    The list of Code Enforcement open cases is 60 pages long affecting almost every neighborhood in Riverside according to records downloaded from the City web site. There is also discussion under way about the possibility of turning the case over to the US Department of Justice for an investigation of Civil Rights violations if not criminal prosecution of those involved. 

    If you are one of the victims of this criminal scheme, please contact Louis, who himself has been a victim of this alleged fraud, either by email at or via telephone at (951) 897-1691.


  10. […] Or the time, which involved City Attorney Greg Priamos denying that he had anything to do with the c…  Again is City Attorney Greg Priamos a liar? […]

  11. Christopher Macias says:

    most of the people who are attacking the site need to buy a clue. you people live in a leave it to beaver bubble. freedom of speech works both ways , just like you have the right to open your pie hole and speak about what you feel is right then so do the site owners of this website is it not your job to police the internet and it is not your job to read things that you do not agree with. the site is not printing copy’s and placing them on your door step . that’s what you have the press enterprise for you should be angry at them because they lie to you most of the time. since the lie is what you want to hear then you are not going to question it . I left riverside because you people are not a progressive city you might think so but that is all in your head. stop trolling and get a life your not the only people that live in riverside . a lot of other residents like the information that they are getting and do not want to be lied to by the P.E.. and to the solder that is butt hurt because he does not like what he is reading please do not lie and say you fought for freedom speech and then try to rip these guys a new asshole you sound dumb because you can not fight for something you do not truly believe in

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s