Posted: April 10, 2013 in Uncategorized



SETTELMENTa     settlement2     settement3     settelment4


At todays City Council, City Attorney Greg Priamos attempted to mitigate the importance of this settlement by dismissing that it had any value due to the fact that there was no court opinion, which would indicate a precedence.  Though the Moreno’s settlement was in their favor, the Moreno’s receive no monies, not one penny, as a result of this suit being a citizen private attorney general suit, the benefit is to the residents and citizens at large.  The Moreno’s have provided their own time and expenses in preparation by reviewing public records.  Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit considered to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff.  The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.  In general, any person, citizen, may sue in care of the Attorney General of the State of California if they see an issue which violates the state constitution and it’s by laws.

The Press Enterprise, Dan Bernstein had much to say in his new article Payback Time: Riverside Watchdogs Force $10 Million Refund

If you are a resident of the City of Riverside, you are fighting for water. Possibly with more rights to that water than the city you live in is allowing you to think you have.  You can drink the whiskey to ease the pain of the high water bills, but you shouldn’t, since you own what has happened?  Does every homeowner in Riverside have water rights?  History says you do.  Ownership of land says you do.  Have you been bamboozled by your own city council representives?

The new June 4th initiative, now known as Measure A, is actually a new tax which will be assessed on your monthly utility bill.  Your utility bill is already taxed by the Utility Users Tax imposed by the City to recover costs such as 911 emergency services, fire and police protection. (Your property tax also pays for these services.)  Is this reaffirmation of an old measure actually another tax for the same purpose? That is unconstitutional Double Taxation!

The city has been collecting unlawful taxes on your utility bill for sixteen years, since 1996 when Prop 218 was put into law.  Our city leadership did not allow you to vote on this and merely continued to unlawfully collect the taxes by GFT (General Fund Transfer) for the last 16 years (in violation of the state Constitution).  The amount to be returned from the General Fund may be $100 million.

Additionally, the City has a conflict of interest yet un-resolved.  It taxes your utility bill and sets the charges on your utility bill.  The maximum General Fund Transfer (GFT) is 11.5%.  If the City General Fund needs additional cash, they, the Council, vote to raise the Utility Water Rates thus providing more tax revenue thru taxation by GFT.  Therefore, by increasing the city’s water income per the questionable tiered system, which increases water rates atronomically, will therefore increase the amount of money in the fund, therefore increase the  11.5% transfer much more.  A little sleight of hand, the constituents are not quite privy to.  Further, as much as 75% or your water bill will be taxes.  Vote NO on the June 4th measure or initiative and demand your Refund!  Los Angeles had recently tried to sneak in a similar measure, but was voted out.  The question arising, is why are elected representatives are not representing and protecting their constitutents?

The question that the residents and businesses of Riverside our asking, “”What does my water bill have to do with City services?”  Valid question, whereby residents already pay for City services through Property Taxes and Sales Taxes etc… Why must we pay more?  You have a yearly budget, a tax is assessed on your properties, but according to the City of Riverside, it is not enough!  Chief of Police Sergio Diaz recently stated at City Council March 12th, that are funds our intact, we can hire 25 more police if we wanted to.

As a result of the water lawsuit, the transfer was ceased….fire, 911 dispatchers, police, senior and disabled services remain funded.  At City Council in February 2013 the City Manager stated we have $400 million in cash, pool and investments.  We also as indicated by some have a $40 million reserve fund.  So why the need for extra money for services already paid for?  No one from the City seems to have that answer.   Well, I do know this, residents must live within their monetary means, why shouldn’t the City?  So because we, the residents of the City of Riverside own our water rights because we own the land that we retrieve the water from, shouldn’t we have extremely low water rates?  In fact, shouldn’t we receive dividends?  This questions has been brought forward to TMC.  Bringing them to City Council is another thing.  Why these residents feel they are afraid to vent their opinions is another.  Why citizens are afraid to come forward to city council to bring their concerns, but feel they will be retaliated by either the City of Riverside’s other police force, Code Enforcement, or the utilization of RPD to go to that individual in a show of force.

Glendale also was transferring money from the water fund, but some residents raised questions about it and the city was aware of several court decisions that could leave it vulnerable, so officials addressed those by stopping the water fund transfer.  “We didn’t do it because we thought it was illegal,” Garcia said. “We just decided to avoid any issue, to avoid any risk, we would discontinue the transfer.”

What about the three tiered system? Is this system illegal? Is this another lawsuit? Another violation of Proposition 218?  Afterall, the residents own the water rights, but the City sells a percentage of that water to the Municipal Water District at a profit.  While at the same time the residents are inundated with higher rates, many residents are asking the question shouldn’t we be entitled to a didvidend?  This in whereby some citrus growers have ceased doing business or have lost their business altogether as a result of higher excessive water rates.  Now the City of Riverside has a long historical history in the the Citrus Industry, of which they are noted.  What do we have left when those in charge have failed to address our historical roots?

For 16 years, since 1996,  the City of Riverside has avoided complying with Proposition 218 and Prop 26. This non-compliance has been most egregious in terms of utility pricing within the City. The City of Riverside employs hidden taxes in the utility prices it charges citizens in order to transfer large sums of cash to the City’s general fund.  The City’s method of creating hidden taxes and collecting these monies denies the citizens their constitutional rights to vote on special taxes and property assessments.

The City of Riverside is water-independent from any other agency. It takes 100% of its water supplies from local groundwater basins and continues to annually sell 6,000-8,000 acre feet of surplus water. Also, the City of Riverside has documented that locally-available sources of water are sufficient to supply the annual needs of the city beyond the current 20-year projections in spite of the widely-declared drought in California.  So folks the truth of the matter is that the Citizens of Riverside own the water  that comes from the San Bernardino Basin .  We have so much water that if it goes beyond the 50 foot water table underground,  the City of San Bernardino would sink.  Yes we know San Bernardino is sinking in bankruptcy, but that is a different story.  But in one Press Enterprise story we found Diamond Valley Lake in Hemet, a regional reservoir for the Metropolitan Water District, well it appear they are having a sale on water!  Yep, they have a little to much and don’t know what to do with it……no conservations rules here my friends.

Recently, the City of Riverside, passed a new resolution March 5th, an amendment to the charter.  An amendment to the charter that was actually made null and void by law in 1996 via Prop 218.  The new amendment, known as Measure A, in which the language is vague and confusing sounds like the work of Riverside’s own crack pot City Attorney , Gregory Priamos.  But is Priamos actually giving the Council ‘the bum steer?”  Is his crime actually guilt of negligence due to faulty legal advice?  After all as in the Bell case, “Council did it because the City Attorney and City Manager told us it was okay.” That did not hold well with the judge.  Council makes the decisions, they should have an understanding of what they are voting for.  Council, is ultimately responsible for the decisions made in care of the constituents, regardless of what their City Attorney or City Manager has told them.

gp1                                              gp2

Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos without goatee   Oops Sorry, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos with goatee

The law requires a public vote on most new taxes or tax increases, and it sets out rules for the creation of special taxing districts that charge property owners for benefits such as street lights. It also requires that fees charged for a service must be directly related to the cost of the service.  We don’t know what was more aggregious, the new resolution or Mayor Bailey’s ruse to promo the overwhelming support of this resolution from the ecomment section of the City website.  The problem was that 22 out of the 39 comments were city employees; 18 of the 22 were favorable comments from the fire department!  Was the Riverside Fire Fighters Union in on it?  Well according to the following document on the City’s web site we have an interesting set of proponents in favor of Measure A.  We have non other than former Mayor Ron Loveridge, we have Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union, we have Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officer’s Union and Dr. Steven Kim MD, Emergency Medical Director of Riverside Community Hospital.  Interesting we have the issue of one ambulance service through the monopoly provided by American Medical Response.  Did the City of Riverside get Dr. Kim to sign because, holy cow, was it because the Riverside City Council approved a $4.5 million, 15-year tax sharing agreement to help fund the Riverside Community Hospital project?  Further, why did the City of Riverside have the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Earley parading at community meetings around town providing informational facts regarding Measure A?

ArgumentFavorJpeg                                  ArgumentFavorJpegtwo


Now Mayor Bailey, did you know anything about this?  Did the Riverside City Council understand what they were voting for?  Did the City Attorney Greg Priamos advise them correctly?  The new City resolution passed 7-0 by all council members.  Did they vote on an illegal resolution, in direct violation of the the California State Constitution?  Did the Riverside City Council receive bad legal advice.  But it doesn’t matter.  According to the judge in the City of Bell case, the Council is utimately responsible regardless of the City Attorney’s advice.  The resolution is as follows:



See folks what your elected officials are not telling you is that the theory behind the law is when you take money from utility customers to subsidize other services, not all of those customers will benefit from the other services – say, tree trimming or community center operations.  But isn’t tree trimming already paid for by your property taxes? of course it is, you are being illegally taxed, and double taxed, and in some cased tripled taxed, and your representatives are simply not knowledeable to make that decision?  I think we saw that with the Bell, CA council, who felt they depended on the City Attorney and the City Manager, and you see where it got them…indicted.

A recent lawsuit alleges Riverside’s transferring money from its water utility into the general fund violates Prop. 218, a state constitutional amendment passed in 1996. Here are some facts about Propositon 218:

  • Voter-approval. Except for sewer, water and refuse collection services, fees subject to the requirements of article XIIID requires a majority vote of property owners or, at the public agency’s option, a two-thirds vote of the electorate, in addition to compliance with the majority protest proceedings.
  • Fees for general governmental services prohibited. Proposition 218 fees may not fund general governmental services, including but not limited to police, fire, ambulance or library services, which are available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as they are to property owners.
  • Fee for service provided only. Revenues derived from the fee may not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee was imposed.
  • Fee not to exceed cost of service. Revenues derived from the fee may not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (See note above).
  • Fee not to exceed proportional cost. The amount of the fee may not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
  • Fees may not be imposed to fund some future benefit.

Another aspect of this measure is that it appears to be paying for alot!  Potholes, Storm Drains (we doubled the tax in 2012), Police, Fire, 911 dispatch, Childrens Lunch Programs, Clean Water (Covered by your water rates), Gang Control (Covered by Federal Police Asset Forfeiture Funds), Library, Crossing Guards, Tree Triming, Disabled Services, Senior Services and it goes on and on.  Property Taxes pay for City Services, the User Utility Tax on your utility bill pays for services and Proposition 172 allocates 1/2 cent from the sales tax to city services.  Government should live within their means, afterall you and I have to.  But what! We had an increase from $2.83 to $5.22?  Yes folks, last year we had an increase in our Storm Drain Tax ( also know as Storm Sewer System), documents as follows:

STORMDRAIN                              PAGE4



For more information go to NO ON MEASURE A


It is rumored, that former Mayor Loveridge, AKA Mayor Luv…. Is he continuing to work behind the scenes to lovingly massage current elected and city officials towards effective goals?  The following documents show that Mayor Loveridge is at the top of the list with reference to his support of Measure A.  Unbeknownst to the public is that Mayor Ron Loveridge has had prior knowledge to the fact that the General Fund Transfer (GTF) is illegal, and has been a violation of Proposition 218 since 1996.  He was president of the National League of Cities, a lobbying group,  in 2003 and 2010.  National League of Cities have created the language of Proposition 218 as seen in this image.



In the lower right hand you can see National League of Cities.  So when former Mayor of Riverside Terry Frizzell stated that former Mayor Ron Loveridge has no purity, has no conscious, and was only there to be a big shot…  well the community is beginning to think differently.


Former Mayor Terry Frizzel slamed Former Mayor Loveridge as driving with young students around campus..well alrighty, that must have been a disturbing seen as Mayor Frizzel has indicated, and it also appeared that former Mayor Ron Loveridge’s wife did not hold back when her husband was out and about on campus territory.

How would you have liked it when your wife went up to UCR and complained about your running around with some of the students up there.  Would you like it if the police had carried her out of there.  No you wouldn’t have! .. and I was right there and saw that you had young students in your car driving around that campus when I was first got elected here.

You have no purity, you have no conscious, you are there just to be a big shot… and that’s all you ever try to be.  You don’t care about the people of this community or you would never had said the things that  you’ve said.  I’m totally disgusted there was no reason for what you did to Karen.  I wish I would have been here, because you would have never had let you get away with this..

And you Mr. Davis, I stuck up for you when you were being put on the carpet, because you had every right to be heard and they tried to shut you up.

What’s the matter with you people, what’s the matter with you, and he (Mayor), he makes the word that you can’t be like Terry Frizzel and veto stuff.  He (Mayor)  didn’t like the manner of my operation.  But I can tell you one thing. (gasp from mayor).

Mayor, when  Ab Brown came up to this podium, you sent me notes, shut em up, shut em up.. and I would send you notes, no, he has the right to speak.


Former Riverside Mayor, Terry Frizzel

Since this happened in a public display between former Mayor Terry Frizzel and former Mayor Ron Loveridge in a public council meeting.  Was this the reason why former Mayor Luv’s boy, now Mayor Rusty Bailey didn’t allow Frizzel to speak at one public comment because she wrote the wrong “item number” on the speaking card?  Was it because she ‘diss’d Mayor Luv in public?  During this chamber exchange of words Bailey chastised Frizzel regarding her speaking card, in what community residents have labeled ‘disrespectful’ and ‘condenscending.’  Was this payback?

Back of the slim girl in a evening dressBut again, who was that girl in red on the 7th floor in which City Manager Scott Barber allegedly stated, “They’ll never learn..”


According to this document, The Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful programs, will be paid by our trash rates.  And this amount will be handed over to The Greater Riverside Chamber, whom Cindy Roth is the CEO.  It’s also touted by her to be a volunteer program.  But the program meets one day a month for a total of 10 months; two months out of the year the program does not meet.  The sum of $189,672.00 is given to Ms. Roth’s Chamber, at a cost to the tax payer of $18,500.00 for one day per month.  Not to shabby for a days work, especially when the Chamber touts it to be a volunteer program.  Street sweeping and shopping cart retrieval was also tied in to the refuse rates as documents show.




City council February 19, 2013

City Manager Scott Barber responded to questions members of the public had during public comment on February 12, 2013 during City Council regarding the appropriateness of charges that go into our refuse rates.  Mr. Barber responded on his blog site:

Recently during public comment, questions were raised by some members of the public regarding the appropriateness of charges that go into our refuse rates. Given these questions, I thought it might be helpful for me to address Proposition 218 in general and these charges specifically.

Proposition 218 applies to water, sewer, refuse and other property-related fees in a limited context. Prop. 218 does not require voters to specifically approve, by ballot, utility rates. Rather, Prop. 218 requires such fees to be “proportional” to the cost of service. This means that the rate may not exceed the reasonable cost to provide such service. Prop. 218 also requires the City to hold a public hearing to discuss adoption of a rate increase, provide mailed notice to all ratepayers of the hearing and if more than 50% of ratepayers object to the rate increase, the rate increase fails. The City has scheduled such a hearing for the proposed refuse rate increase for February 12, 2013, and all ratepayers have been so notified of the hearing.

A specific question was raised as to why refuse ratepayers should be charged for the following services:

– shopping cart retrieval

– street sweeping

– Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful, which is a program administered by the local Chamber of Commerce.

Specifically, two ratepayers have asked how these services directly benefit their parcel. Here are the answers:

– Shopping Carts: The retrieval of shopping carts will not be funded by the Refuse Fund.

– Street Sweeping: The Refuse Fund funds a portion of street sweeping, because a portion of the refuse which is collected by the street sweepers is either a result of collection bins being collected curbside or is refuse that is generated by the property owner that otherwise should have been deposited in collection bins.

– Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful (a program of the Riverside Chamber of Commerce): Keep Riverside Clean and Beautiful (KRCB) is a community based program sponsored by the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, the City of Riverside and other organizations and individuals to provide community clean-ups and beautification efforts to improve the quality of life for the City of Riverside. Since 1992, KRCB has provided hands-on stewardship with litter prevention year round. City of Riverside refuse funds are used to help pay for time and materials needed to implement litter removal activity. City funds have helped to pay for removal of 116,965 pounds of litter, 800 Adopt a Street clean ups for 84 Adopt a Streets, monthly clean ups, the Great American Clean-up volunteer program activities and calculation of the annual litter index. KRCB works throughout the city with local businesses and schools to provide volunteers and sponsor events to remove trash cleaning up our environment and improving the quality of life in the City of Riverside instilling a sense of pride in our residents. On November 11, 2011, KRCB won the national award for First Place from Keep America Beautiful in the category for cities with populations over 200,000. The judging was based on litter prevention efforts, recycling & waste reduction, beautification programs, community involvement and leveraging resources, media and public awareness, and recognition programs done throughout the year. Programs which promote and educate as to the proper disposal of refuse, the appropriate diversion of recyclable materials, and the proper disposal of hazardous waste benefit all refuse ratepayers by keeping the City’s costs for refuse collection low.

Hopefully, you will find this information helpful as you review these issues- thanks for reading, Riverside.

– Scott (City Manager Scott Barber)


Of course, I get it, it had to be done, but will the truth ever come out?  There is still questions concerning a person’s due process, could it ultimately be abused due to the power of the badge, for any citizen under any possible situation?  The Dorner incident, Dorner was killed…this is a grey area the community is concerned about, and can they be a victim?

The question of how apprehending criminals comes into perspective when we how this is actually done.  If you are a law enforcement agent do you have carte blanche with regard to the decision that is made with regard to a criminal.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m an just trying to understand the difference between as some have said police vigilante justice and resident vigilante justice.  Can it be construed as one in the same or are we under a different set of standards?

As one reporter stated, “If the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty — without a trial or anything resembling due process — then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that’s how they’re acting.”

So let’s think about this, is this really as they say about truth, justice and the American way?  The American way is that everyone has a fair and just trial before sentencing?  If not, who are we?  Who are the perpetrators of justice who are their to protect, serve and defend us?  Where does the law come in or does it at all, or does it apply for applicable situations?  Should we as a society accept the premise that ‘law enforcement’ knows what is best for the so called residents it states that they are there to protect and serve? So what happens next?

A hypothetical, a male suspect rape’s and kills my daughter.  As a father I find the suspect and unload a glock .45 till the clip is empty, am I justified?  Or am I taken into custody for not allowing the perpetrator a fair trial.  Under the situation have we lost ‘perspective’?  so what have we become? Is this acceptable for one set of circumstances, rather than an another?  If this in fact is true how far has our perspective deviated?  Has it deviated to the point of our loss of perspective?  The loss of perspective as a result of emotion?  Emotion being the perpatrator of vigilante truth, justice and the American way?

So with this perspective what do we really have? Real justice without due process?  Can we really accept this as a society based on laws? Law that are applied to the citizens, but may in fact not apply to so called protectors of society.  So now what? Can we, as a society, who are in essence the government, supersede law enforcement agencies to enforce their own vigilante justice?  After all, we are the government, and as the government we have the last word.  Therefore have some aspects of our policing agencies gone rogue?  If in fact they don’t answer to the people that employee them?  Why do certain sectors of law enforcement feel it necessary that they feel laws don’t apply?  Law enforcement gangs? As indicated to be the enforcers of societies woes as they see it, as they see it for their ‘brothers’ woes, doe this change things? Does this change “Perspective”.  Your perspective welcomed, please respond in the comment section..

Should we pick and choose where laws should be enforced by the laws in the books or that code of vigilante justice only empowered by the few in uniform or without? as one reporter indicated.

“If the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty — without a trial or anything resembling due process — then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that’s how they’re acting.”

Degressing, how does a gang within the Sheriff’s Department known as the “Jump Out Boys” allowed to occur?  These individuals have matching tattoos and pride themselves on aggressive policing.



If they can do this in this situation, what do the police do in community situations and get away with? This is what the community is concerned about and many fear in their police in which they are their to protect and serve. Or are they a completely different animal when it comes to the relationship with the community, are they to serve themselves and their associates as a cohesive self serving unit or gang. Does the community in essence have something to fear in those that a there to protect and serve?

Or do we have the Bourne Effect?  One who knows to much and extremely dangerous and must be terminated with extreme predjudice?  Yes I get it, we are now getting into conspiracy theory territory, but these are question people are asking..

So what is the truth, is he one who is truly insane, not by intention but by design?  Someone who broke the rules of the thin blue line and must now except the consequences.  We will never know, was that by design or orchestration, we will never know..


Former New York Police Officer Frank Serpico

So how does the community handle abuses in the policing system when the policing system cannot do it themselves?  Or in the case of New York Police Officer Serpico….one police officer against an army for doing what was the right thing to do, and yes, he paid the price.  Paid the price because the police force didn’t answer to the community, it answered to a different source.  Please comment freely with your opinions.

RPD Officer’s please set us straight and comment anonymously regarding this issue on  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM


People are not happy on how the cities which offered rewards for information leading to whereabouts of Dorner, decide to renig on the fine print and not pay up.  The City of Riverside says it will not pay up because the reward was for the ‘capture and conviction’ of Dorner.  So they are just going to take back that $100,000.00 and call it a day.  Well as TMC has said before, let’s put that $100,000.00 for the unsolved murders at a local level to pursue an expedited investigation of local residential unsolved murders of Laureanz Simmons (14) 02/23/2012, Gregory Ball (37) 01/26/2012, Arturo Reyes (55) 01/17/2013 and Ashanti Hassan (29) 06/30/2012?  The police always seem to get their man when it comes to their own, why don’t we use a little of that for our community for once.  Even Press Enterprise, Dan Berstein brought these unsolved murders to the forefront in article “Unsolved Eastside homicides haunt Riverside; someone knows who did it.”  Others in the community have stated that the murders are unsolved, because the Eastside in just not that important.  Hopefully that is not the case and the police continue to strive hard, as if it was there own, to bring the perpetrators to justice.  The residents feels the police are part of the community they live in, and would do whatever is necessary to help and ensure their safety.  Many feeled betrayed and conned, hoodwinked or bamboozled into thinking that the City of Riverside was on the up and up on their offer of $100,000.00 for information on Dorner.  As terrible as it sounds, some resident have said it begins to give Dorner a bit of legitimacy in what he says are problematic issues in the police department.

Well you know the saying, once fooled, twice shy. People will hesitate to come forward next time. And the city offers rewards to help get information in gang killings too, so will it promise a reward and then back away from it in these cases? The ideal is for people to report sightings of people wanted for crimes because it’s the right thing to do. Like the two brave men who responded when the two officers were shot by Dorner in the intersection.  The ideal is for cities to keep their promises especially when it comes to the use of public funds. At least in Riverside, it covered itself through wording in its resolution.  – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE.

If the original couple had not called the police Dorner would have gotten off the mountain and continued his killing, Riverside is using semantics to welch on their promise. No one knew he was in that couples car and no one would have noticed him. So the next time a cop is killed in Riverside they shouldn’t expect any help from the public. What a way to honor their lost officer.  – Harry Hill, Commenter on the PE.

Another Commentator on the PE simply wrote this letter to the council and mayor:

This is a letter I wrote to the City of Riverside (City Council and Mayor) in response to their decision to withdraw their pledge of $100,000 to the Dorner Reward fund. I urge you to copy/paste this letter and email it to the City Council (emails listed). Urge them to do the right thing.
Subject: It is a disappointing day to be a City of Riverside resident. To:;;;;;;;
Dear Mayor Bailey and City Council Members,
I am life-long, proud resident of Riverside (Ward 1). In my entire lifetime, I have never been so disappointed with the City’s decision than I am today with the news release indicating that City of Riverside is pulling out… our $100,000 pledge to the Dorner Reward fund.With this decision, you have set a precedent to the 25+ donors of this fund that using the fine print “capture and conviction” to forego your ethical responsibility to pay out the reward is okay. Mayor Bailey and Council members, I am here to tell you this is NOT okay. I understand that as politicians who run this city, it is your responsibility to make responsible fiscal decisions. It is your job to ensure that the integrity of our Council is in tact so that our city can run effectively, efficiently, and ethically. You have been remiss in your ethical responsibility in this decision; your integrity has been compromised. This is a slap in the face and injustice to the families of Officer Crain and Officer Tachias. Not to mention equally disgraceful to the families of Deputy McKay, Ms. Quan and Mr. Lawrence – all of which Dorner was implicated in killing. Additionally, what does this say to the public when we do offer a reward (such as the two who have rightful claim to this particular reward)? That they must read the fine print? We all know that rewards are offered because sometimes it takes incentive to take the risk to offer information to locate a dangerous criminal. In this particular case, the citizens did the right thing in reporting his whereabouts and that led to the standoff that ultimately took Mr. Dorner’s life. The spirit behind the reward offer was fulfilled. The cop-killer that was Mr. Dorner is dead. Had the citizens not responded, this would not have been the case. I too, would have preferred that Mr. Dorner stand trial and conviction but he took that from all of us when he shot himself on that day. It is dishonorable and disingenuous of the City of Riverside to pull our pledge. I urge you to reconsider this decision. Show our city, our state, and our country that the City of Riverside will do the right thing, the honorable thing by pledging the $100,000 back to the reward fund.
Sincerely, Michelle Bertok


2008-adams     2008-bailey          images

    Steve Adams                                 William Rusty Bailey                              Chris Mac Arthur

There has been three ethics complaints, two recent, one a couple years back, all were brought to the panel with valid questions regarding possible ethics violation by elected officials, all went through the criteria for evaluating those concerns, all came out with favorable outcomes.

Did Pete Esquevel intentionally allegedly lie to the Ethics Panel in favor of councilman Steve Adams, contrary to his signed affidavit in his suit against the city?  What would be the consequences of these actions for the former RPD Officer as well as the Councilman?

Was Pete Esquevel’s testimony in favor of Councilman Steve Adam a contradiction to his testimony on the Bacon/ Hurt case?  Therefore, was the ethics panel again given wrong and inaccurate information in which resulted in an inaccurate decision?  Should therefore Councilman Steve Adams have been found guilty? Of course according to the facts?

Mayor Bailey Ethics Complaint, did City Attorney Gregory Priamos massage the panel prior to Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s Ethics Complaint?  In addition, is City Manager Scott Barber the responsible party for Councilman Mac Arthurs legislative aide Chuck Condor, rather than the councilman?  Again what gives?  It appears the panel was led to believe that the City Manager was in charge of the legislative aides, but at City Council, Davis pulled teeth to get an answer that revealed the Council person was in charge of the legislative aide.

Is there a pattern to all of this?  Is it known within City insiders that the City is never wrong?  Never wrong…whereby a finding should never come to this, regardless of the legal cost?  Should constituents be concerned?


What was not reported by mainstream media and are local Press Enterprise, was that during the Dorner episode, RPD was taking privileges with no responsibilities toward property.  What happened to Dr. Shafai’s office during the Dorner’s shooting of Officer Michael Crain and Officer….  Why was Shafai’s office busted up into pieces whereby he had to cancel his patients appointments and is now his responsibility for repairing RPD damages?  Why didn’t the PE have precedence to write the story.  Why does RPD Chief Sergio Diaz now tell him to contact his insurance agency for the RPD Damages?

So is the police force part of the community or a separate entity unto themselves?  Is it a culture unbeknownst to the community?  What gives the authority of a citizens police force to take over private property, cause damage and the property owner is responsible?  These are unpopular questions residents are asking of their police force, but unwittingly have received rational answers.  This is a community who supports their police force, but their policing leadership has not reciprocated a reasonable and rational answer to their concerns.


Rumor mill has it that Mayor Loveridge is still working his magic from behind the scenes.  Sources have indicated to TMC that the Mayor Luv still loves being mayor, and he continued to direct and advise others within the city.  Mayor Luv was seen recently coming from the seventh floor once again.  Wasn’t he done being mayor? Some have coined him “rogue mayor”, still working his magic on city and elected officials.  Or maybe as some have coined him, Riverside’s “rogue mayor”.  Where’s mayor Bailey in all of this? Maybe doing a little biking, and leaving the real running of the city to the experts?

The following document shows the former Mayor Ron Loveridge signing at the top of the list, “The Argument in Favor of Measure A”.  Who you will incidently find, is Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union and also Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officers Union.  Oh, let’s not forget Dr. Steven Kim, M.D., Medical Director of the Emergency Department, Riverside Community Hospital.  But I guess he had to, he was obligated to, as a result of the tax deal bestowed with the City of Riverside.  Where does ethics come into the picture?  I guess it doesn’t.. Emergency Department, American Medical’s all relative folks, you are getting screwed!  Not to mention Mayor Rusty Bailey’s relationship with AMR’s Peter Hubbard.  Hubbard of course in case you didn’t know, runs AMR.  It is no uncommon to see the two of them eating ice cream at a local Dairy Queen.  Should we assume their is connection?  Should we assume that the taxpayer is truly railroaded and blindsided in paying more taxes?  We can surely assume folks, just wake up and do the math!

ArgumentFavorJpeg     ArgumentFavorJpegtwo


Another fact, is that “The Argument for Measure A”, is signed by former Mayor Ron Loveridge, Timothy D. Strack, President of the Riverside Fire Fighters Union and Brian C. Smith, President of the Riverside Police Officers Union.  This would stand to reason to question Chief of Police Sergio Diaz’s position on this issue, as well as Fire Chief Steve Early, whom will be present at your meeting.  Utilizing City personal to “state the facts” or give “and educational presentation”, is misleading, and may, in fact be an FPPC violation.

But let’s not stop there, TMC has been informed that the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Early are being brought to neighborhood associations to provide informational services on Measure A.  We are seeing the yes on Measure A points, but not the No on Measure A.  Do we have a FPPC violation?

What the city faIled to see was that there was a heartbeat to the city of riverside and they themselves could not see it.  I saw it, and was excited about..but the City of Riverside destroyed it, thought they knew better, even hired outsiders to figure out what was wrong with the city.  Maybe because they didn’t like the pulse of what was revealing it self in the city. They themselves didn’t want to go with it, instead they hired high priced consultants beyond the 100K mark to figure it out, to design their vision rathers then the vision that was happening in the city at the time.



What gives? Did the City of Riverside make the biggest mistake ever?  International news on the issue didn’t help our City, that’s for sure.  Karen Wright ask the City for an apology at the March 12th City Council meeting.  No answer as of yet from the Council, they continue to appear stone face on the issue, City Attorney Gregory Priamos continues delve deep in thought while on his computer, while City Manager Scott Barber texts a message under his desk at public council meetings.  The DA’s office has been able to decide murder charges in 24 hours, as in the Dorner case, but seems to have difficulty making a case against Riverside’s own citizen advocate Karen Wright.  Again, what gives?  Well it certainly appears as if the Council and the Mayor wished the whole thing would just go away.  Well it should, and in the name of transparency, those responsible should simply own up to it, a mistake was made, and believe me, the constituents would highly respect you for that, because in essence, we all make mistakes, and that my friends is a given.  Arrogance will get you no where!

HAVE GADEFLYS AND WINGNUTS GRADUATED TO WATCHDOGS? According to the Press Enterprise’s Dan Berstein, mentioned the fact that the group of naysayers, wing nuts, gadflies appeared to now have some integrity to be called ‘watchdogs’.  Thanks Dan…  We are still in the mix of integrity..

STOCKTON’S NEW CITY HALL SEIZED BY WELLS FARGO!  How can that be?  And eight story building which was to be Stockton’s new city hall was seized by Wells Fargo, after the city had defaulted on bond payment.  In addition three of Stockton’s parking garages were also repossessed as well.


Can the same thing happen to the City of Riverside?  Afterall, we have place in collateral are fire stations and libraries, and have been assured by city officials that this scenario could not happen.  What? Even Riverside’s City Hall is on the collateral list in addition to a police station.  But it did happen in Stockton, CA, what makes them different?


Sometime back , we brought to the attention that signs placed the city were not updated or just simply discheveled.  We all know if you are homeowner in Riverside there a good opportunity that you will be cited by the City of Riverside’s Other Police Force, Code Enforcement.  But what happens when the City is wrong?  Well nothing, of course, the City will never admit that their was any wrongdoing.  They will simply attempt to correct the defect and go forward.  But if you receive a parking ticket, as in the case of Rebecca Ludwig, your in for a real ride.  The City of Riverside seemingly outsourced the complaint system regarding challenging parking tickets.  What this means, is that it becomes more difficult, let’s put it this way, simply impossible to receive a justifiable hearing.  But as others are saying, the City may have designed and orchestrated this process in their favor.  As they say in Vegas, “The House Always Wins.”  But surprisingly, in this case Rebecca Ludridge won.  But she did have to submit bank statements as well as how much income she received.  You may be asking what does this have to do with a ‘parking ticket?.


While former Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel is medically retired, RPD Officer Neely Nakamura’s case is on trial this week.  While the City of Riverside fought hard for Esquival not to testify on the witness stand during trial, Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor overruled the city’s attempt, and Esquivel will be summoned to provide testimony of the detailed events.  The City also fought hard for Nakamura’s attorney not to question former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis and his alleged extramarital affair.


Officer Neely Nakamura

According the tort claim Assuma and Capen illegally accosted and detained Nakamura.  It appears from the tort claim that Assuma and Capen also pressed for details of the Esquival and Nakamura sexual affair.  For your reading pleasure, both salacioius tort claims are here on TMC for viewing.  Will Nakamura expose the intra workings of the RPD?


Former RPD Deputy Chief Pete Esquivel

A part of RPD that continues to cost the taxpayer more and more in payouts in legal settlement cost.  With this the usual suspects are named in the law such as the legendary former City Manager Brad Hudson, Assistant Manager Tom Desantis (Now working for Moreno Valley as the head of Human Resources, that’s one sensitive man that knows how to work with people), also Michael Blakely (acting as Captain and Deputy Chief), John De La Rosa (acting as Chief of Police) and Lt. Michael Cook.

Did former Assistant and acting Chief John DeLaRosa attempt to cover up the Chief Russ Leach DUI incident according to the tort claim?  Read the tort claim.


Former acting Chief John DeLaRosa

“At the time, Nakamura and Esquivel were involved intimately in a relationship that was private and unknown to members of the department.”


Deputy Chief Michael Blakely

Investigators, Cook, Capen and Blakely pressed the issue, forcing Nakamura to describe the type of sex acts that they would engage in (Nakamura and Esquivel).

Q: Yeah, well uh, you’ve already said intercourse…

A: Right

Q: …occurred, did other sex acts occur?

A: What type of sex acts?

Q: Oral copulation, uh, masturbation, anything like that uh, or was it just always intercourse?

A: All of the above.

Nakamura was allegedly kidnapped, by the very entity that is there to ‘protect and serve’ the people of the City of Riverside.

Was their cohersion and blackmail by Riverside’s finest?  What gives?  Well it certainly appears Blakely loves details… It also appeared Cook and Capen needed to press for more of the salicious details as well.  Now they can go talk about it with fellow RPD over beers.  A question that keeps popping up, “Was their a crime committed?”  Do we have another situation of rogue police utilizing and abusing the powers that they have?  Do we have another aspect of possibilities of the jump out boys?  Or do we simply have two people allegedly having sex on company time?

In the tort claim, what did former Assistant City Manager Desantis mean when he told Esquivel not to bother putting in for a promotional job and why?  Did DeSantis emphasizes that Esquivel had no chance for the job.  What was DeSantis’s involvement?  Who was DeSantis allegedly having an affair with?  Was it also off or on Taxpayer time?  Incidentley, DeSantis is now working for the City of Moreno Valley as Human Resource Director.  Incidently, Rhonda Strout, Human Resource Director for the City of Riverside is allegedly dating Moreno Valley City Manager Henry Garcia.  Former Public Works Director for the City of Riverside, Siobhan Foster, who’s husband, Barry Foster, is Director of Economic Development for Moreno Valley.  Residents of Riverside, should I say more? Have you woken up already?

NAKAMURA                                 tortesquievel


More to come from this weeks trial.   Will Nakamura expose a particular sect of RPD that allegedly is rogue?  A secret culture that includes the Chief of Police, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney and even the former Mayor?  Unbelievable, but as one famous saying going, you cannot judge a book by it’s cover.  The former mayor who has appeared to have a favorable façade over the years, may only be a façade.  One of the above who was sued and who testified was also allegedly having sex in the city parking lot and caught on video tape?  No video tape exist, according to City Attorney Greg Priamos, but on the same token, in a public records request act, no contracts exist for expenditures in Primos’s office as well… Go figure.  But it stands to reason that similar behavior is occurring at City Hall on taxpayer time, but who decides to pick and choose as to who is to be thrown under the bus?

Is Superior Court Judge Ronald Taylor friends with one of the defendents who testified?  Would this be a conflict?  Do we have as we stated before, Quadrangle of Influence as TMC previously stated?  After, the jury was dismissed, Judge Ronald Taylor asked former Assistant City Manager Tom DeSantis how’s he been doing..

Good ol former Assistant Manager Tom DeSantis, testified of his concern of “time card fraud” by both Deputy Chief Pete Esqueval and Officer Neely Nakamura.  Employees tell a different story of DeSantis, a contradiction of his original concern.  Mr. DeSantis “departure” from the City of Riverside was back in 2010, but now Director of Human Resources for the City of Moreno Valley.

tom                    tom2                    desantis22

          Tom DeSantis, Oops                         Tom DeSantis, Sorry                   Here we go, Tom DeSantis

Further, according to the tort claim, Blakely and Cook were in clearly in violation of Penal Code sections 518, et seq., extortion.  Now folks, these are not how all Riverside Police think, I know some of them, but there is definitely a subculture who believe they are untouchable, regardless of the law.  I don’t know how the local Police Union feels about this, but there are questions that are in the forefront that they themselves have not brought forward.  So now, how do we handle the allegation of kidnapping, of course, by Riverside’s finest?  The same entity who is there to ‘protect and serve’ the community.  Should the community be afraid?  They are, as TMC has been told by the community as a result of their experiences with some RPD officers.  How do we as a community resolve this?  The council and mayor have not.  It is therefore pertinent, that we as a community we show are support for those in RPD who are truly orientated toward doing the right thing, and work to remove those who have tainted the integrity of our local law enforcement who is there to serve and protect our community, rather than terrorize them.  The FBI and DOJ have been placed on notice, as many residents have realized that are local entities such as the DA’s office and are local Grand Jury are unresponsive to community concerns.

According to the tort claim, Blakely reminded Esquivel that this would be very embarrassing for him and his family if these details get out.  Coercion , collusion and blackmail by RPD Deputy Chief Blakely? I can do the math, you do the math, the numbers can’t be changed on this one folks.  Dirty? How dirty? Is this the typical dirty cop?  Well how dirty is it today under Chief Nacho Cheese’s watch?  We are not sure.  But anonymous sources continue to state that RPD are being used as ‘enforcers’ for certain city personal.  Post your comments and continue to contact us anonymously at THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

UPDATE: 04.11.2013: CITY SAVED BY THE JUDGE?  NEELY NAKAMURA CASE THROWN OUT!  What happened during the two hour lunch break, if at all, changed the mind of the Honorable Judge Taylor to simply throw out the Nakamura case?  Will we ever know?  What kind of message does this send to female police officers?  Questions continue to be brought out to the forefront.  Judges know other judges, judges know public employees, judges know elected officials, did this judge know Mayor Bailey’s father, Judge William R. Bailey II?  He certainly appeared to know many in the city.


Why did Nakamura’s attorney attempt to remove Judge Taylor as the acting judge?  In this pic we see Bailey’s father, Judge William R. Bailey II, with now Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey (middle) , and Judge John Gabbert.  Judge Gabbert has a history going back to the 40’s which answers the question of why the City of Riverside uses Best, Best and Krieger so much..


Judge John Gabbert, in younger days, a Quandrangle of Influence within the City of Riverside?  What is the connection between Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside?

Inconsistencies in the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation Funds regarding Cindy Roth’s Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce?  Coming soon..


  1. Riverside leaders are corrupt bastards; unchecked mobsters on the loose. Councilman Andy Melandrez is one of the worst cowards in US history based on my experiences. There are no cognitive answers defining Riverside actions because the gangbangers running our City Council have motives of self promotion and self-gratification. The ugly circle jerk among them leaves Riverside citizens covered in our public officials sweat and seamen. The good old boys circle jerk provides the blowing and stroking necessary to feed their additions. The rush feels good to our self-indulgent leaders. Proving who owns Riverside’s water supply is hardly relevant given the current status of California’s Babalyon, Riverside. Bell, CA leaders look like the girl scouts by comparison. jp

  2. judy says:

    HELLO! This should be a wake up call to all of us!! Our mayor, City attorney and City manager at the time of Prop 218 knew exactly what they were doing. Isn’t the City attorney paid to make sure all is lawful at a City Hall? Who IS running city hall anyway, or is it just a free for all? I, for one, am disgusted that for 16 years we have been charged 11% for water that we did not use! The bigger insult is that they are going to raise our rates soon anyway. I would like to know exactly where that 6 million a year was spent and for what services? Why are we OK with part time city council people getting benefits such as a car, gas, meals and refreshments, and god knows what else they get reimbursed for. Most people I know have to buy there own car, pay for gas and meals out of their own pocket, and they feel blessed just to have a job. Our city council representatives are suppose have our best interest, be our eyes, ears and voice at city hall, and keep things transparent!
    What the Moreno’s have uncovered is just the tip of the ice berg and I’m sure there are more and worse things to come. We owe a debt of gratitude to all these people who have made it their mission to find out what is really going on behind those closed doors and big ego’s at City Hall!
    As citizens we should all demand a full audit into the finance’s at city hall and know exactly were our money is going!!!!!!!!

  3. marzydotes says:

    What disturbs me is the rationalization used by people who are supposed to be providing an honest government. Yeah, it’s illegal and yeah, we’re giving some of it back but we need it anyway for a) b) and c). Reminded me of the book Les Miserables where a man stole to survive and faced a 20 year sentence while there was a lot of grift and stealing among the government with no action taken.

    It’s hard to take the city serious when they want to go after someone whose kid did graffiti and broke a law when the same city attorney’s office is basically seems to be giving advice that we broke the law, it was fine until we got sued and now here’s the way to get around it. If government is willing to engage in behavior that is or is skirting the edges of violating a state law in public, what does that say about how it conducts business in private?

    I hope the people who vote for it and donated thousands of dollars to push the measure at least are thinking about these questions when doing these things.


  5. […] and decisions that are made by unqualified employees cost the taxpayer millions of dollars.  Now let’s take a look at the Neely Nakamora vs City of Riverside case.  Former Assistant City Man…  The Council may pretend to be shocked by the email, but they know this has been a problem for […]

  6. […] will continue receive their high pensions.  But Strack is singing the same tune he did a couple of years ago when they lied about the No on Measure A campaign, and said we would lose import….  Well folks he lied, lying Tim continues to lie about Measure-Z.  This $100K started out as […]

  7. Loving the info on this internet site, you have done great job on the articles.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s