Javier Moreno

Author Archive

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: THE HUNTER HUNTING DOWN THE CORRUPTION.

Posted: December 20, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: assistant city manager belinda graham, Brad Hudson, Cihigoyenetche, city manager brad hudson, city of riverside, greg priamos, Grossberg & Clouse!, raychele sterling

IS THE ETHICS PROCESS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST A KANGAROO COURT RUN BY THE CAPTAIN KANGAROO HIMSELF, GREG PRIAMOS?

Has our Ethics Complaint process been thoughtfully designed by City insiders to orchestrate a favorable result each and every time a complaint is brought forward to the adjudicating body by a member of the public? We’ve noticed the members of that body always seems to somehow be a little too closely associated with City business. We therefore ask the following question, “did this resolution deny former employee of Public Utilities, Jason Hunter, due process and deny his civil liberties regarding his right to a fair hearing?”

Mr. Hunter was recruited to run our utility’s wholesale marketing and trading function. Apparently, he wasn’t too impressed by what he saw there, because he became a whisteblower within years of his start date. A non-native to Riverside, poor Mr. Hunter just didn’t know exactly how we treat, “those kinds,” when he began his complaints. Of course, if he did, he most likely would not have come to the River City in the first place! When the City terminated his services, in lieu of a lawsuit, it appears Mr. Hunter filed an ethics complaint to quickly and inexpensively get to the bottom of what he perceived to be an illegal and unethical appeals hearing process within the City, which he had just been dragged through, he filed an ethics complaint against our Human Resources Board…only to find out that process was as crooked as the appeals process!

His concerns included the City hiring outside council, whereby he had none, City Attorney Gregory Priamos’s continued interference in the process, etc., etc., ad naseum, ad infinitum.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE RESOLUTION 22590

When we look at the following resolution passed by City Council passed October 2012, the above resolution appears to contradict the core values. One of the core values is “creating trust in government.” By consolidating all individuals into one hearing represented by one or several attorneys, places doubt on this concept. The conflict of interest of Justin Scott Coe, chairman of the Ethics Panel, also chairman of the board of Public Utilities, of the department of which Hunter’s services were terminated. It doesn’t stop there, the first hearing did not end in a definitive decision, but was deferred to a later date or continuance, so the panel could study the complaint with a better perspective. We will get to that a bit later. Priamos was did not appear at any of the ethics hearing, and according to Hunter should have recused himself at the Human Resources hearing as a result their prior interaction with his resulted in none compliance to his document and informational request.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW RESOLUTION 22461

Hunter names the following as part of the ethics complaint: Norman Powell, Chairman of the Human Resources Board; Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew and Tricia Eibs, all members of the Human Resources Board.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW HUNTER’S ETHIC COMPLAINT

Hunter’s objections are as follows:

I object to the city paying for outside counsel for the Human Resources Board members at their ethics hearing if this indeed is happening. I remain unrepresented and question the fairness of such arrangement.
Per City Charter Section 702 (b), the City Attorney is to, “represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which any such officer or employee is concerned or is a party for any act arising out of such officer’s or employee’s employment or by reason of such officer’s or employee’s official capacity.”
I object to the City Attorney’s Office advising the Ethic Hearing Committee, as it cannot fulfill its obligation under the Charter and remain as independent counsel to this committee. This is an obvious conflict of interest, much like the City Attorney himself advising the Human Resources Board at my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013, while his subordinate, Mr. Neal Ozaki, advocated against me. In fact, as a former city employee, I question why I was not given the option of being represented at the City’s expense at the May hearing, as it appears members of the Human Resources Board will be at this Friday’s scheduled hearing.
I object to the City Attorney’s Office writing the protocols all-together. Per Section 804 of the City Charter: “Each board or commission may prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with the Charter and copies of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk where they shall be available for public inspection.” Resolution No. 22590 violates the Charter by allowing a conflicted City Attorney to unilaterally adopt the protocols for this hearing and is therefore illegitimate.
I object to any past, present, or future ex-parte communication between Smith Law Offices, city-appointed counsel (I assume) for the Human Resources Board, and either Ethics Committee members themselves or their counsel regarding any matters regarding this complaint. If this communication has already occurred, I demand to know the nature of such, and based upon such information, may request dismissal of the HRB’s counsel or Ethics Committee members to ensure a fair hearing. Per the California Public Records Act, I request all contracts and invoices of Smith Law Offices with the city related to this hearing.
I object to city of Riverside board and commission chairmen serving as members of the adjudicating body. These appointed officials owe a duty to the city of Riverside, and hence have a considerable conflict in remaining independent. Further, they themselves fall under the jurisdiction of the Code of Ethics and Conduct and are therefore not unbiased in determining the intent of the voters in interpreting the code. Moreover, members of the adjudicating body themselves may be subject to ethics complaints at a future date, with members of the current Human Resources Board finding themselves serving as their adjudicating panel. The conflict here is obvious.
For the same rationale as above, I object to the Riverside City Council serving as the appellate body.
I object to Justin Scott-Coe serving as the chairman of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Scott-Coe is the current chairman of the Board of Public Utilities. I was illegally terminated without cause from Riverside Public Utilities in part for whistleblowing activities against its executives, and the conflict here should be obvious.
I object to being given only 15 minutes to state my case. This matter should be dealt with seriously and no time limits should be in place, as long as relevant materials are being discussed and the meeting is progressing efficiently. I question the fairness of this protocol, and its compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to opposing counsel being given unlimited time to state its case, given the restrictions on my time. I question the fairness of this protocol.
I object to not being allowed to compel witnesses and evidence, as allowed under Section 804 of the City Charter.
I object to not being allowed to question city employees and members of the Human Resources Board as to their involvement in the proceedings of May 13, 2013. I question the absence of this protocol, and whether this absence violates compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to not receiving answers to the various questions I have asked to elected officials and public employees over the course of the last several months in regards to this complaint and my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013.

In an email to the City Council he hopes that they would consider the alternative..

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND VIEW EMAIL

The City Charter for the City of Riverside is as follows where he specifically refers to Section 804:

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE CITY CHARTER

In the second part of the hearing or the continuance, after 2 hours of discussion the panel found no code of ethics violation connected with the hearing process of the Human Resource Board, but the panel would recommend to City Council that their be more training of the Human Resource Board. Also noted was the interference of City Attorney Gregory Priamos in the process. What was also disturbing was that Ethics Panel Chairman Justin Scott Coe admitted meeting with City Attorney Gregory Priamos prior to the hearing, and that he recieved a set of protocol from Priamos that the others on the Ethics Panel did not receive. Again we have a conundrum with the perseption of conflict of interest and swaying the decision process by the City Attorney himself.

City Attorney Gregory Priamos Public Utilities Board Chair Justin Scott-Coe

Interesting enough one of the speakers who in defense of the HRB was none other than BB&K Attorney, Joseph T. Ortiz. Who is also part of the Greater Riverside Chamber Business Council as well as the Riverside Community Police Review Committee. But if you have been reading this blog, you also know very well how entangled BB&K is with the City of Riverside on boards etc. Coincidence, conflict of interest, you decide.

Joseph T. Ortiz, Best, Best & Krieger Labor & Employment Attorney

Ortiz was quite outspoken on the issue, but it doesn’t end their. A complaint was issued by Jason Hunter regarding an RPD episode at his home, evidently initiated by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. In regards to this episode, Hunter issued a complaint against the Riverside Police Department via the Riverside Community Police Review Committee. Will Hunter recieve a fair hearing of which was against Riverside’s finest? His story is as follows:

RPD GIVE FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER A VISIT

What TMC learned, was that after Hunter was released from his postion, a pack of three RPD officers were sent to his house. We were later told anonymously that one of the RPD officers was known as “Crazy Vince.” We learned they were sent by non other thatn City Attorney Gregory Priamos, this in order to question him regarding a complaint made against him of alleged threats. He was told by an RPD officer that he was not allowed to appear at City Council or on the City Hall grounds. The officer told him they would place handouts around to inform other RPD officers. “You can’t do that,” Hunter stated. The officer responded, if you do they’re may a young edgey police officer and you may get shot. Now what we had in the past, was Karen Wright arrested for going over the 3 minute mark, Letitia Pepper arrested for clapping, and now the threat to shoot to kill a former employee by RPD enforcers given the order per the City Attorney Gregory Priamos. When RPD attempted and reached Hunter’s ex-wife to ask her information regarding his state of mind, she asked how did you get my information? They didn’t respond. She also now has a complaint with CPRC for illegally attaining private information, as well as Jason Hunter for the threats to kill him if he shows up at City Hall. It doesn’t get better than this folks! Others also have come out anonymously, and have also had experiences with RPD acting out of the line of duty as “enforcers.” We certainly may not hear anything from DA Zellerbach, expecially in an election year..or Chief Sergio Diaz, because I imagine they will say it just doesn’t exist. So far the Riverside Community Police Riview Committee has not responded to Hunter’s complaint. But how will this pan out with City supporter Ortiz, a BB&K Attorney and Commission Member of the Riverside Community Police Review Committee? In which their mission statement states that the Community Police Riview Commission was created in order to promote public confidence in the professionalism and accountability of the the sworn staff of the Riverside Police Department. Sworn should mean something to a police officer, to uphold the law and not the so called blue line of protection. Most use the term to refer to the unwavering commitment the police have for each other, to the point of willingness to blur the truth in favor of their “blue” brethren. Meaning: The police do not cross “the thin blue line” when it comes to defending each others’ actions.

Let’s hope TMC doesn’t get a visit from the so called enforcers… Thanks, we have the FBI.

More to come on this breaking story…

PAST ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN CHRIS MAC ARTHUR:

Going through past ethics complaints we bring the isssue of the complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur and his legislative aide Chuck Condor. While the adjudicating body found no wrong doing, OSHA cited with the complainents regarding the action in question. Councilman Adams may have other words to describe his attack on complanents, “Did you see it? did you see it?”

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL OSHA REPORT

LANZILLO: THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING…

The gift that keeps on giving, once again one of Riverside’s former best, fired RPD officer Chris Lanzillo is in the news again. In 2010 he was fired by RPD, then shortly reinstated, then granted a tax free medical retirement after a settlement agreement. Lanzillo decided to start his own investigative practice in Orange County and worked with an Upland Law Firm, Lackie, Dammeier & Mc Gill. So TMC asked the question, “Is this insurance fraud?” According to Police Chief Sergio Diaz in a 2010 Press Enterprise story, Lanzillo was fired “not because he was a member of the leadership of the [police union], but because he did some really bad things.” The specifics of “THE REALLY BAD THINGS” was not elaborated on by the chief. But if the Chief chimed in on this, we must speculate the worst. So Sergio, what the hell does “REALLY BAD THINGS MEAN!” If you can tell the community of Riverside, which incidently pay for your double dipping salary, what do we have as a Chief of Police? If you are a leader, take control to protect, serve and train your officers. If you cannot do that, just retire, and allow those officers who can take the City Riverside into the the 21st Century.

In a TMC story earlier this year allegations of former RPD officer and former President of the Riverside Police Officers’ Union, Lanzillo was involved in some unscrupulous activities in Orange County. After his medical retirement, Lanzillo must have had a health miracle in that he felt good enough to to start his own investigative practice, in which from time to time, worked with an Upland Law Firm, Lackie, Dammeier & Mc Gill. Lackie, Dammeier and McGill, which represents more than 120 police associations in California, until recently had featured on its website a manual for tough negotiating tactics that included targeting city officials until they caved in to union demands.

The current allegations were that the two allegedely conspired and were involved with shaking down elected officials with embarrassing information that would compell them to vote on issues favorable to Police officers and their Police Union. The latest is that FBI became involved. Further, they were utilizing the local law enforcement officers as enforcers for their ill gains, without concern of the taxpayer. Lanzillo allegedly utilized GPS tracking devices illegally placing them in the vehicles of elected officials. The conclusion was that this gave the perception that this was a conspiratorial shake down and black mail operation of elected officials, hiding under the auspices of a legal law firm supporting the request of union law enforcement officers. Then the Orange County DA raided their offices in October of 2013.

TMC did a full story on Lanzillo back in August of 2012, click this link to view the full story.

Incidently, there is also an incident of stalking, anonymously sent to us, regarding Lanzillo when he was with RPD. This he did as a uniformed officer.

LIVE NATION TO TAKE OVER THE FOX THEATRE.

“This is an exacting opportunity for the City of Riverside,” Mayor Rusty Bailey said., “this contact will provide Riverside with a world-class entertainment provider to match are world-class facilities.” We at TMC were not aware that Riverside had “world class facilities.” Did Mayor Bailey give this paid gig to Live Nation because he grew up with one of the officials Live Nation, Paul McGuigan?

The City continues to be in the business of government entertainment, even though the Fox Theatres continues to operate in the black at over $1 million a year.

Sometime back TMC did a story regarding Nederlander and the operation of the Fox Theatre.

We also did a story regarding how city associations may favor who you know.

GOING BACK IN TIME IN RPD, THE KEERS COMPLAINT: “LOOK HER MOUTH IS OPEN, SHE MUST BE TRYING TO GET PROMOTED.”

In 1989, when Keers yawned in the bay, Detective Ron Adams (Councilman Steve Adam’s brother, prior police officer), commented, “Look her mouth is open, she must be trying to get promoted.” Nice Ron..and good luck on your brother who believes he is Congressman material for the next election. Watch out folk who you vote for!

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL BACK IN TIME KEERS COMPLAINT

This complaint filed by female RPD officer Keers back in the 90’s against the police department. Yes, it does have Councilman Steve Adams brother Ron Adams included in this complaint. Even now, what will the City of Riverside do to curtail undo liability against the taxpayer via their employees, such as RPD?

HOW DOES IT LOOK WHEN RIVERSIDE CITY ATTORNEY, GREG PRIAMOS, IS HELPING BEST, BEST & KRIEGER MAKE TONS OF MONEY FROM RIVERSIDE CITY TAXPAYERS BY VIOLATING STATE BAR RULES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST? ‏

According to an email sent to TMC by Attorney Letitia Pepper the following was stated:

As I think most of you know, local activists have been trying for years to get copies of any contracts for legal services between the City of Riverside and the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger. This is because the City Charter provides that the City Council is supposed to approve — after review of course — contracts for outside legal for legal services.

Their Public Record Act requests have been met with a claim that no such contracts exist! Yet the City continues to pay BB&K the big bucks — but without any contracts?

State Bar Rules require that attorneys provide all clients with a written contract for any legal services. There are only two possible exceptions to this requirement that might apply to explain why no contracts exist between BB&K and the City:

(1) if the services provided were provided on an emergency basis (in which case a contract in writing must be provided once the emergency has been dealt with), or

(2) if the client has waived its right to a written contract.

I have urged these activists to submit a written Public Records Act request to the City for any records related to the existence of such a waiver of the right to a written contract. I don’t know if they’ve done so yet. But this is an important issue that must be addressed alongside the absence of any written contracts.

Would such a waiver of the City of Riverside’s right to a written contract for legal services be legally valid? No, it would not.

The right to a written contract for outside legal services, which can then be reviewed and approved only by the complete City Council, is a right which exists for the public’s interest, not the interest of the City Attorney, or the interest of the City Council members. A right created in the public interest can never be waived.

This issue is of particular importance right now. The City Attorney has been retaining the expensive services of Best, Best & Krieger to file amici briefs in appeals in which the City of Riverside has absolutely no interests! The amicus brief I was shown by Jason Thompson, Esq. already filed By BB&K on behalf of the City of Riverside, even states, in its introduction, that Riverside has no interest in such case.

After the City Council’s plea (and mailings) that people vote for Measure A, or else face the reduction or closure of libraries and other public services, why and how is the City paying for such legal fees? Do the members of the City Council even know what’s going on, or how much money we’re bleeding in fees in cases in which the City and its residents are not involved?

And is the City Council prepared to allow the City Attorney to continue to funnel taxpayers’ dollars into even more lawsuits related to Best, Best & Krieger’s lucrative war against medical marijuana, when the City’s own residents have not been demanding an attack on medical marijuana?

Who is running this City? Its residents, or the City Attorney?

Below is a link to the page at the BB&K website, showing how BB&K will be able to continue to raid the public trough for millions of dollars, with help from City Attorney Greg Priamos, unless the City Council demands that, as required by the City Charter, any further outside legal services be first put into a written proposal, with a written legal services contract, submitted to them as an agenda item, and then put to a vote of the complete city council.

I request that Jason Thompson provide the City Council, the press, and the public with copies of these amicus briefs showing that the citizens of Riverside are paying for legal services that provide them with absolutely no benefits.

Our governments, at all levels, have been hijacked by special, financial interests. What’s happened in Riverside with this outside-legal-service-payments-without-a-written-contract scheme is a great local example. It’s also a great opportunity for our currently elected officials to prove that they are going to begin to represent their constituents, not big businesses, and not big law firms.

Sincerely, Letitia E. Pepper

Here’s the link to BB&K’s website that shows that, if the City Council doesn’t regain control over outside legal services, we’ll be bleeding wasted money for years to come.http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40%20&an=27170&format=xml#!”

UPDATE: 12.24.2013: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BELINDA GRAHAM HIRES SAME LAW FIRM TO INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES.

According to a Press Enterprise story on December 24, 2013, Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham again signed on the Rancho Cucamonga law firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse to again investigate another alleged wrongdoing case for the City. This time they were hired to investigate RPD’s asset forfeiture expenditures. If you remember back in May 2011 we did a story regarding forming Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling’s allegation of that former City Manager Brad Hudson was allegedley steering contracts to his friends. This Sterling learned from emails via employs in that department. Ms. Sterling reported these allegations of favoritism and was then fired by City Attorney Greg Priamos. City officials then said the allegations of contract steering were baseless, the City Attorney never responded and City Manger Hudson hired the above firm to investigate himself and put to put to rest these allegations against him. The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about.

NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T!

Partner Scott Grossberg of the law firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse

The story gets stranger, because TMC found out later that one of the partners of the law firm, Scott Grossberg, also a motivational speaker who specializes in magic, and is the author of three critically acclaimed and bestselling books, available on Amazon, “The Vitruvian Square: A Handbook of Divination Discoveries,” “The Masks of Tarot,” and “Bauta: Betraying the Face of Illusion,” in addition to his oracle/divination cards, “The Deck of Shadows.” This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.

HERE’S THE ORIGINAL TMC STORY ABOUT THE WHOLE INCIDENT OF ALLEGED CONTRACT STEERING AND FIRING OF FORMER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING.

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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: IT’S OVER THE HILL, AND SOUBIROUS WINS THIS ONE!

Posted: November 10, 2013 in Uncategorized

City Hall changes their underwear for the second time today, and possibly three times yesterday, maybe more, after hearing the news that Mike Soubirous beat the cities golden girl Valerie Hill in last Tuesdays Ward 3 City Council race. The beating was 54.49% (2,415) Soubirous to 45.51% (2,017) Hill. Regardless of the astronomical amounts of monies donated by the Unions for Valerie Hill. What did the Union expect from Ms. Hill? Was she then obligated to the unions after these donations were set aside for her campaign? One hot situation..right folks!

TMC has been notified that Parks and Recreation Director Ralph Nunez has resigned, who retires at 54 years of age? Evidently the city has been appropriating monies to other departments and not funding the Parks and Recreation Department, making it difficult to maintain our 52 parks, thus making his job unbearable at best. One past example was the proposed cuts for about seven of the Riverside public pools. This after Measure A passed, which was to prevent these cuts. Many of the residents began to see through the light of what the City tried to sell them, and many of them felt bamboozeled. You decide.

Opps did we clip the truck?

Restriping Brockton Avenue will impede traffic flow in Riverside. The speed is 35 mph on Brockton, while on Magnolia it is 40 mph. Arguments to create a bike lane thus taking away a lane on Brockton will be catastrophic since this is considered a main artery for commuter travel in the City. Justin Scott Coe, co-founder of the Woodstreet Green Team, states it’s all about the children and their safety. Arguments such as cars speed anywhere from 45 to 50 mph have been indicated. Well that’s breaking the law, and we should have no problem having RPD moniter Brockton when the law is broken, especially after Measure A was passed. Measure A was passed to insure no break in policing, and Coe was a supporter of this, therefore this should not be a problem. But logically, how will this all pan out? I was driving Brockton on Monday about 5 pm, and it was loaded with traffic, no bikes of course, but there is no bikes on the restriped Palm Avenue next to El Tequesquite Park! But is it truly about children safety and greener pasture which includes bike, or is it about not losing Federal Transportation Funds? Shouldn’t there be a hundred cyclist at any given moment to support this action? The bike lanes on Palm Avenue are rarely used, and the single lane for vehicles is back to back. Brockton Avenue is running rapid with vehicles at any given time of the day and we want to restripe it for cyclist, so what gives with elective officials? Now a possibility of placing a street car on Magnolia Avenue. Elective officials surely know how to kill business and slow down the economic growth of their cities. The cost to the taxpayer just to do the study on the feasibility of this rail line is $300,000.00! According to the Press Enterprise, the construciton cost in Portland, Oregon came out to $45 million a mile. Should Mayor Bailey wake up from his long siesta and stick to riding his bike? How much was the feasibility study for the Brockton Avenue regarding illusionary bikes?

Such excesses as a new trolley system have been brought to the forefront, but is this streetcar fantasy or streetcar desire really a “Street Car Named Debacle?”

What happened with city council under closed sessions were certain people asked to leave but refused? is there a rift involved with certain city officials?

LETICIA PEPPER CITIZEN ARREST VS. MAYOR RUSTY BAILEY CITIZEN ARREST: A TAIL OF TWO SETS OF RULES.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW MAYOR BAILEY’S SIGNED CITIZEN ARREST FORM

CLICK LINK TO VIEW ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER’S SIGNED CITIZEN ARREST FORM

Attorney Letitia Pepper’s citizen arrest form was of course refused by the attending Riverside Police Officer based on his assertion that there was no real evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor William ‘Rusty’ Bailey. Evidently by Sgt. Patrick McCarthy stated Leticia had no evidence to sustain an arrest against Mayor Bailey. But in true accord with the first citizen arrest against Letitia Pepper, the RPD officer failed to realize that there was evidence to sustain an arrest against the Mayor.

Sgt. Patrick McCarthy, Riverside Police Department

Why did the attending officer refuse? Was it because of the presence in the city of Riverside that Mayor Bailey’s father hold? Mayor Bailey’s father is non other than Judge Bailey. Judge William R. Bailey II is connected to a close associate, friend and founding father of the infamous Riverside Best, Best & Krieger law firm, Judge John Gabbert. Does anybody see the light on this one? Are we actually coming to answers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?

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?

First, there was a Citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey himself, accusing Pepper of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape was evidence to the reveal that Ms. Pepperdid not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403. We often said, as many have said who live in this great city we call Riverside, we have a culture and practice of status quo. To many, it’s simply known as corruption. Many in the community are afraid to state this publicly. Why is it? Is it not public servants work in the employment and service of the taxpaying constituents?

I had the citizen’s arrest form signed by Bailey accusing me of violating PC 403, and the City’s own video tape that showed I did not disrupt the public meeting and therefore did not violate PC 403, Ms. Pepper stated.

STREET CLEANING IN THE WOOD STREETS…

Submitted by a an anonymous Wood Street resident who does not wish to be disclosed. What is it with the City of Riverside and their ability to terrorize the taxpayer. They’re ability to intimidate and make them feel they should not complain about the services without retribution?

Five minutes after the street cleaner came by this Wednesday the 6th, this was what was left. Though, the parking citation representative was positioned right after this cleaning machine spewing out ticket after ticket to the Wood Street residents and Riverside Community College Students. Residents have stated that they have given up in “Liking Mike.” If you know what I mean.. The true purpose of ticketing Wood Street residents and to incidentally punish them is as a result of the City unable to live within their means and addiction to continue to tax and fee the citizens of Riverside. So the City of Riverside cannot efficiently keep the streets the clean and therefore must create a ruse to continue to tax and fee the residents of the Citizen of Riverside without their impute. So the question becomes to many Wood Street residents is this truly about keeping the storm drains clean of clogging debris of has the taxpayer been duped? One resident took notice of the tree trimmers, how quickly they came through the neighborhood simply cutting a few young branches and off they went while trampling residential landscapes. One resident even asked one of the tree trimmers how could they possibly think they were finished. His answer was that the City told them to trim off old branches, but that was not what they were doing. I could only imagine how they will trim the palm trees. As many residents in the Wood Streets know since the City has took their time in not trimming City trees, a walk in the neighborhood has not only become a crap shoot but a liability from falling branches. Here is one street that hasn’t been done for years, but the City complains how we must keep our storm drains clear. Since the trees haven’t been done for years, a build up has occurred, and some professional thinning is in order. Where does our tree trimming money go City of Riverside? To fund other side projects?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: HU$H …………………..money PART 2

Posted: October 30, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: chief of police sergio diaz, chief russell leach, city attorney greg priamos, city manager scott barber, city of riverside, connie leach, Danuta W. Tuszynska, karen aquino, mayor ron loveridge, police asset forfeiture, riverside grand jury

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE EXPENDITURES

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

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

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

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

4. Al Johnson Florist

5. A birthday cake

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

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

8. Office furniture which totaled $100, 000.00

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued….

HUSH MONEY PART 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRACT ONE

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

CONTRACT ONE AMENDMENT

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

CONTRACT TWO

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

CONTRACT TWO AMENDMENT

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

CONTRACT THREE

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

CONTRACT FOUR

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

CONTRACT FIVE

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

CONTRACT SIX

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

CONTRACT SEVEN

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

CONNIE LEACH TIMELINE CONNIE LEACH PE ARTICLE

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

CONNIE SUES CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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

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

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

Karen Aquino, Police Administrative Service Manager for RPD

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

Attorney Danuta W. Tuszynska

CLICK LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE TUSZYNKA LETTER IN CARE OF AQUINO

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUST FOR LAUGHS!

How important is golf in RPD culture?

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

Yippee…made it!

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND ~~MEZZSPELLED~~, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR GOOD REASON, AND ~~PROSSIBLY~~ POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY ~~SPHALL~~ SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: D.A. FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS ON WRIGHT! WILL CHARGES BE FILED AGAINST PEPPER ON CLAPPING?

Posted: July 8, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: arrest, city of riverside, clapping, councilman mike gardner, karen wright, letitia pepper, mayor rusty bailey, measure a, paul zellerbach

DA FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS, BUT IT’S NO PISSING CONTEST EITHER!

Karen Wright, Was her actions Illegal or Just Bad Business? Or just an April Fools day prank by the D.A.’s Office? The Day after April Fool’s Day Community Activist, Karen Wright received this letter from the Office of the District Attorney, Paul Zellerbach. What’s foolish about the whole thing is that April Fools Day was the 160th day without the DA filing charges. The day Ms. Wright showed up to court in December 2012 could have been the first April Fools experience! The DA never showed because they never filed charges. Many in the community are asking if this is why scrutiny is now being placed on D.A Zellerbach’s office after a series of questionable actions. In Ms. Wright’s case, she even had to call to find out what the DA’s plans were, since they didn’t have the common courtesy to call her and postone the court day. Now according to the below letter, she appears to be tried and convicted by the DA’s office. The DA states, “You are advised that your actions on that occasion were criminal, and are punishable by a fine of up to the amount of $1,000.00 and /six months in the county jail.” It certainly seems a bit wreckless to create that assumption, being the very actions could have been challenged in the court of law, of course, her civil rights being infringed. If this ever happened or was the case, I’d suggest anyone to take case out of Riverside. But the bottom line if this was criminal and punishable, why no charges?

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW ZELLERBACH’S LETTER TO KAREN WRIGHT

Now, we know according to Zellerbach letter, talking 16.8 seconds after the bell, it is a crime. So why wasn’t Mike Fine arrested when he past the bell beyond the 16 second rule? It’s quite possible that maybe it’s just important to cover your bases with campaign contributions. Possibly according to public records Zellerbach has. But I guess when citizens have true concerns they all appear to be dismissed as not applicable, or in Zellerbach’s famous words, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?” when it comes to the antics of elected officials.

Citizens participating in government are not called patriots; they are called gadflies. Newspapers perpetuate this idea that involved citizens are pests of the public process. This is a government of, by and for the elite — not we, the people! -Commenter Paul Jacobs from Temecula

More information continues to come out regarding Zellerbach office, according to The Rusted Bell (No relation to the Mayor), there’s a Federal Complaint to filed against his office. This in a case involving a Temecula Sheriff’s Deputy intentionally and deliberately leaving drugs in home where a 14 year child resided. The victims of a home based laptop business alleged they were searched in a series of three occasions, robbed at gun point. Allegedly Temecula Sheriff’s Department even used Walmart loss prevention agents to storm house. A complaint issued to the DA’s office by the small business has fallen on deaf ears by the D.A.’s office. Family alleges that the DA’S office handled by Paul Zellerbach is deliberately and intentionally stalling time to allow for limitations to run out on these Officers and Civilians (Walmart Loss Prevention Agents..) Victims intend to have ALL past Search Warrants involving this Team of Officers Reviewed.

Something which is interesting, word is coming down the pipeline from an anonymous source that Zellerbach in his younger days may have crossed the line. Did Zellerbach have a stalking issue with a former girlfriend years ago? What would this mean now if anything, about Zellerbach’s current disposition?

zellerbach

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT ME TO DO?

In response to the accusations that there may be a strained relaltions between his DA’s office and Riverside Police Department, Zellerbach fired back according to statement from the City News Service, “This shouldn’t be a pissing contest where one calls out the other for not doing something,” he said, “We work hand-in-hand.” Ahh.. the visual on that last statement by Paul just didn’t sit right.. Who uses phrases as this in a news conference? This news conference was in reference to the allegation that some domestic violence cases take a back seat in Riverside County. Well whatever the case may be, Zellerbach may be up for the competition. “Any takers?”

A question for City News, “Are you on file with the DA’s Office for this reporting, as TMC is?”

In an incident that made national news, Public Speaker Karen Wright appeared at her December 27^th court date regarding her charge of disrupting a public meeting. Later found through a public request act of the police report, City Attorney Gregory Priamos had given instruction to RPD Officer Sahagun to stop Wright from going past the three minute allotted time by sixteen seconds.

Riverside City Attorney Greg Priamos Riverside DA Paul Zellerbach

It also appears that City Attorney Greg Primos made an important journal, the American Bar Association Journal, which states, “City Attorney Blaimed for Arrest of Woman, 60, Who Exceeded the 3 minute Speech Limit at Council Meeting.” One commenter on the journal stated, Nothing says: “We really do value citizens’ opinions on Council business!” like armed police ready to cuff speakers for exceeding the three-minute limit.

The fun simply never seems to stop with the Priamos’s, it must be it the blood. Take a gander at this L.A. Times Article where no one seems to know who paid the sports players at USC, but Greg’s name keeps coming up! First, the wife then the twins… sound like a skit of “Who’s on first!”

The situation became increasingly incomprehensible when Priamos would not comment do to “attorney-client privilege.” Attorney client privilege? That’s what we said… In lieu things continued to take a strange turn when the filing by the Paul Zellerbach’s District Attorney’s office was never issued. Karen was told by the court to call the DA’s office to find out if the DA intends to file or not. Attorney Letitia Pepper attempted to request the issue be addressed in court so she could ask for a dismissal. The court would not allow this. The waiting game continues, since the DA did not have the courtesy to follow through, the justice system leaves Ms. Wright in the dark at this point, and she herself must make the effort to contact and find out their intentions. How many DA departments be connected to and placed on hold to ask the question, “Mr. DA, do you plan to file charges against me?” Could this inaction by the DA’s office be construed as a continued form of harassment toward Ms. Wright? Or to continue the confusion so a warrant for her arrest is issued? That’s so Riverside. Most Riversidian’s agree, the Council and Mayor should have dropped the charges rather than enduring more city embarrassment, but currently the DA appears to be dancing around the issue.. So what is DA Paul Zellerbach’s relationship with the City of Riverside? Possibly with BB&K? The Riverside Grand Jury? Local Superior Court Judges? The Attorney General Office of the State of California? and of course local cronies? Well…

Outdance the DA on the current issues? Tough competition, any takers?

One of the first items for new Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey would have been to drop charges. Currently, Chief Sergio Diaz has yet to publicly apologize to Ms. Wright for his behavior and unrestrained verbality toward her earlier this year at a City Council Meeting. No complaints were issued against Chief Diaz by Wright. Chief Diaz was not arrested at this incident for his disturbance at Council Chambers. So it appears that there may two sets of rules, one for officials and one for residents, which seems to go against the very fabric of what this nation was built on.

So the citation issued by the police lists a court date. You check the docket the day before and can’t find your name, you call the DA and they say they are still consulting. You are then in a position where you still have to go to court because you don’t want to have the DA file at the last minute, you not show and the judge issue a bench warrant. You also don’t want to appear in court without an attorney, so you have that exspence. I’m sorry but it looks like they are unfairly jerking Ms. Wright around. This case should have been dismissed. Shame on the city of Riverside and shame on the DA. – Kevin Dawson, Commenter on the PE

Just wait until the trial and CA Greg Priamos takes the stand under oath and has to testify who ordered him to order the officer to “stop” her. I don’t think his “apology” will quite cut it here. – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE

Acording to the Press Enterprise, John Hall, Spokesman for the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, state they didn’t have enough time to investigate.

John Hall, ~~Spokeshole~~ Spokesperson for the Riverside City DA’s Office

Okay John! this can expressly be construed as the DA does not have a case. Hall went on to say, “There’s nothing that we have to do by law to notify anyone that nothing’s going to be done on that particular day.” Okay John, I get it, you have the power but you had over 8 weeks to figure this out! What goes? By the way do you take dance lessons, because it appears you are dancing around the issue as well as the Big Kahuna, Zellerbach. He further stated according to the Press Enterprise, that in the past six years, only one other case has come in under penal code section § 403 — disturbing a public meeting — and the district attorney ended up filing different charges against the suspect. Penal Code § 403 states every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So they couldn’t charge someone with the original arrest charge of penal code § 403 and had to concoct subsequent charge or unlterior trumped up charge? So why would the DA have to do this? Would it be because of the embarrassment of the whole charge to begin with? As of January 4, 2013, Wright’s case remains “under review” and remains unlisted on the courts databases. “Under review?” Is this code word for “no case?” It’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office show on a court date, it’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office collaborate with the defendent, otherwise can this be construed by the DA’s office of a pronounce expression of arrogance? Information for the DA’s Office only.. we have included a printable icon for ease of printability in order for the DA’s office to file TMC articles..

According to a Press Release, Councilman Paul Davis says that City Attorney Gregory Priamos was soley responsible for the directive to arrest Public Speaker Karen Wright if she spoke beyond the three minute rule, completely disregarding the authority of the Council and Mayor. Again a secondary example was seen when City Attorney Scott Barber spent $2 million dollars without Council approval. The question many are asking is “Who’s running the store?”, “Who’s in charge?” According to Columist Dan Bernstein of the Press Enterprise, it really appears that Riverside’s City Attorney Greg Priamos is running the show. Probably not without the help of the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, which have been siphoning hundred’s of thousands of dollars in legal fees without a contract! How should we explain this to the taxpayer? Possibly “attorney client privelidge?”

What about our concerns with Connie Leach, former wife of Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach. The Grand Jury report was thrown out without a thorough interview process, therefore and incomplete investigation.

Why did Paul Zellerbach’s office not jump on and investigate the illegal transfer of money from the citizens water fund to the General Fund? You must understand why we had to go to outside Federal agencies. We couldn’t have him ponder if it was “illegal or just bad business?”

THE CLAPPING GAME, THE MAYOR AND LETITIA PEPPER…

James Roberts, reporter for the News Caller, covering the High Desert News, gives his play by play analysis of the events that fateful day when a citizen decided to approval clap. Roberts analyzes the First Amendment, the proper role of government and the nanny state; whereby no ones feeling can be hurt. Roberts also mentions that there were others clapping while Letitia was clapping. The question then arises is to why was Ms. Pepper targeted by Mayor Bailey? According to a statement given to the Press Enterprise, Mayor Bailey stated, ” I felt like she came down there with a purpose to get arrested and to provoke me into that response and she gave me no choice.”

CLICK THIS LINK TO GO TO JAMES ROBERTS POSTING AND VIEW VIDEO

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW & HEAR AUDIO OF AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW BETWEEN JAMES ROBERTS & LETITIA PEPPER

Letitia Pepper, Esq. sent this letter in a form of an email to the Council and Mayor, July 2, 2013 to reiterate her position on clapping. Currently the City of Riverside has no rule on clapping, according to Ms. Pepper if would illegal to adopt a clapping rule after the fact. Mayor Rusty Bailey carries a Political Science Degree from West Point and was also a government teacher at Poly High.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THIS LETTER IN PDF FORMAT

Currently, according to the Letitia Pepper, Esq., she has attained an actual copy of the citizen arrest complaint against her by Mayor Rusty Bailey. It appears that Mr. Independent Voice himself, Mayor Rusty Bailey, crossed out the section where it discloses it’s a misdemeanor to make a false arrest. Who is able to do that? Again, this appears to always come up time and time again, are there two sets of rules? One for City Officials and one for the Citizens? With the city’s track record it certainly appears so. Regardless, Ms. Letitia Pepper went back to the RPD Station and filed a false arrest complaint against the Mayor Rusty Bailey. What will happen now, will his pop, Judge Bailey gather his network of friends together to help his son? Will Councilman Mike Gardner state again this time that she deserved it, as in Karen Wright’s case?

WONDER HOW MANY TIME MAYOR BAILEY PASSES THIS STATEMENT NEXT TO CITY HALL?

OOPS, THE GRAND JURY JUST RELEASED THERE FINDINGS BUT PRESS ENTERPRISE FORGOT TO MENTION THIS LITTLE TIDBIT OF INFO ABOUT CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS!

According to the Grand Jury report below and the full document to follow, they found that Priamos spilled the beans after he was admonished by the Grand Jury not to discuss any of the details of the Dunbar case. The City Attorney appears to have thumbed his nose at them and decided to do whatever he pleased, thus violating PC 939.22. Further, when Priamos asked for a postponement of the initial interview, the Grand Jury asked an alternate in his office could take his place. He answered he was the only ‘qualified’ person.. That’s has to be a slap in the face to those who work under him.

The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. On April 12, 16, and 18, 2013, the Grand Jury received correspondence signed by the City Attorney with the subject line “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765.” According to sworn and recorded testimony, the City Attorney stated that after speaking with the Riverside Police Department, he “surmised” the Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, was the subject matter being investigated by the Grand Jury. Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter, all confidentiality on

the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised, as this document was copied to the following:

The Hon. Mark Cope, Presiding Judge Creg G. Datig, Assistant District Attorney Pamela Wall County Counsel

Scott C. Barber, City Manager

Belinda J. Graham, Assistant City Manager

James E. Brown, Supervising Deputy City Attorney

Frank Hauptmann, Community Police Review Manager4

When asked why he copied these individuals, his response was, “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing”. After being admonished regarding secrecy, on April 22, 2013, the City Attorney filed a Motion and Motion to Modify with the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside that contained Exhibits B and C with the subject, “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765,” which is in violation of Penal Code §939.22. On May 20, 2013, the Office of the Riverside County Counsel sent a letter

of admonishment to the City Attorney on behalf of the Grand Jury.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL GRAND JURY REPORT ISSUED IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

EMAIL REGARDING MARY SHELTON IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Thank you for your quick response! I do sincerely hope you’re correct and that his interpretation of the grand jury process and its findings is more accurate than his interpretation of Prop 218 and the issue of utility money transfers proved to be. I’m not the only city resident who’s been watching his performance over time and not become very concerned by a trend rather than an isolated incident.

All my best,

From: “Gardner, Mike” <MGardner@riversideca.gov> To: Mary Shelton Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:11 PM Subject: Re: Riverside County GJ reports

I appreciate your concern Mary. However the mere fact a Grand Jury makes findings and recommendations does not make their conclusions accurate. Please read the newspaper story when it runs. I think you will find the findings to be in error in this case. Best regards, Mike Sent from my iPhone On Jul 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, “mary shelton” wrote: Greetings, I was perusing the Riverside County GJ site the past several days and found reports issued on both the RPD and the Riverside City Attorney’s office. I am very concerned about the findings issued by the Grand Jury in connection with City Attorney Greg Priamos and his office. I’m especially concerned by the following excerpt which alleges that a violation of PC 939.22 was committed: The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. On April 12, 16, and 18, 2013, the Grand Jury received correspondence signed by the City Attorney with the subject line “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765.” According to sworn and recorded testimony, the City Attorney stated that after speaking with the Riverside Police Department, he “surmised” the Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, was the subject matter being investigated by the Grand Jury. Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter, all confidentiality on the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised, as this document was copied to the following: The Hon. Mark Cope, Presiding Judge Creg G. Datig, Assistant District Attorney Pamela Wall County Counsel Scott C. Barber, City Manager Belinda J. Graham, Assistant City Manager James E. Brown, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Frank Hauptmann, Community Police Review Manager4 When asked why he copied these individuals, his response was, “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing”. After being admonished regarding secrecy, on April 22, 2013, the City Attorney filed a Motion and Motion to Modify with the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside that contained Exhibits B and C with the subject, “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765,” which is in violation of Penal Code §939.22. On May 20, 2013, the Office of the Riverside County Counsel sent a letter of admonishment to the City Attorney on behalf of the Grand Jury. He admitted that he was disseminating information about the GJ doing an investigation in connection with the RPD which is doubly clear by the individuals carbon copied. Even though as an experienced municipal attorney who’s a sworn officer of the court he should be well aware of the legalities of GJ proceedings including secrecy. After all, he’s witnessed at least several GJ reports involving the City of Riverside. The fact that he may or may have erred in what the GJ was actually investigating and the RPD GJ report doesn’t make that clear in the area of audio recording devices, the intent was still the same or he did it ‘surmising” that he was divulging information he was privy to about a civil GJ investigation. We the public including those who the CA has enforced laws and code violations against are expected to know and obey the law but the CA doesn’t have that same expectation being in a more educated position? This is just hard to fathom or would be if I was completely in the dark about other related problems in this same area. I can’t believe that an environment exists at City Hall where a city attorney would behave in such a fashion under the belief that it was appropriate. I asked the PE if they were writing about it. Apparently a story’s being done for publication. Best regards,

THE NEW BOOK THAT’S ON THE NUMBER ONE SPOT IN RIVERSIDE…

Why’ll a new book is becoming the rage in Riverside, called the “Shyster’s Daughter”, written by Paula Priamos, a relation to our City Attorney Gregory Priamos, which takes an intricate view of the family environment in which she grew up in.

Does Greg Priamos have a family history of unscrupulous legal work? Cousin Paula Priamos wrote a book the Shyster’s Daughter which give insight to the family dysfunctionality and immoral legal dealings. When contacted by Dvonne Pritruzzello, Paula Priamos assertained to remain distanced from cousin City Attorney Gregory Priamos..

Excerpts: “Your lucky he didn’t kill you,” I say. If death didn’t get him in the form of an actual bullet, it could’ve gotten him from shock. Primos men are known for strong minds and weak hearts.

“I see my father’s body doubled over the wheel. I see his chest and arms spilling out of the car, his head dangling, blood seeping out of the wet hole in his scalp.”

CLICK THIS LINK TO PURCHASE THE BOOK ON AMAZON

Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos Cousin and Writer Paula Priamos

WHAT’S GOING ON WITH HIGHGROVE?

Highgrove residents having been paying into the 11.5% general fund transfer through their utility bill, but the clincher is that they do not recieve City services in return. They are now questioning the legal application of Measure A toward their water rates. The folowing article was taken from the June 2013 issue of the Highgrove Happenings Newspaper which also appears on-line at: www.highgrovehappenings.net CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE EXTENDED VERSION BY R.A. “BARNEY” BARNETT OF THE ARTICLE IN THE JULY 2013 SIXTEEN PAGE RELEASE, INCLUDED IS A WATER HISTORY BY LOCAL RESIDENT SCOTT SIMPSON

Highgrove Happenings Newspaper

Riverside’s Measure A and how it relates to Highgrove resident’s water bill payments

From the desk of R.A. “Barney” Barnett

If you pay your water bill to the city of Riverside do you know that a portion of your water bill is not going for water related services?

I learned recently via a phone call from the Press Enterprise that residents of Highgrove who pay their water bill to the City of Riverside have 11.5 % of their water bill going to the City of Riverside’s General Fund that can be used for Riverside City Police protection, Riverside Library, or Riverside City Street repairs and other expenses not related to water service.

As you know, Highgrove receives protection from the Riverside County Sheriff Department, not the City of Riverside Police Department and we have our own library in Highgrove. And the streets are maintained by Riverside County since we are in the un-incorporated part of Riverside County.

Some Highgrove residents receive water service from the Riverside/Highland Water Co. that has offices in Grand Terrace. The newer homes in Highgrove have Riverside/Highland water service whereas most of the homes west of the Union Pacific Railroad track and portions of the older neighborhoods north of Center St. by Michigan Ave. have City of Riverside water service.

Alicia Robinson, the Press Enterprise reporter, said that since Highgrove is outside the city limits of Riverside, Highgrove residents do not get to vote on whether or not 11.5 % of their water bill payments should go to the City of Riverside’s General Fund. But these funds can be used for city services other than water related expenses. To make matters worse, some residents within the city limits of Riverside have Municipal Water and do not pay their water bill to the City of Riverside but these residents will get to vote on Measure A because they reside within the city limit boundaries of Riverside.

This all may seem a little confusing but when you add it up, it amounts to $6.7 million dollars per year that is being transferred from revenues received for water bill payments to the City of Riverside’s General Fund for purposes other than water related issues.

Here are the facts as I understand them:

If Measure A passes, this amendment will allow the City of Riverside to continue taking 11.5 % of Highgrove resident’s water bill payments and putting the money directly into Riverside’s General Fund. A lawsuit has been filed based on the transfer being an illegal maneuver.

I recently received a mail-out addressed to: “Postal Customer” which appears to be a sample of the ballot that has the City of Riverside’s logo as the return address. It states: “Official Measure A Ballot Question” which is a 4 page mailer that lists some of the services that would be cut if Measure
A fails. This list includes cutting 9 police officers and 12 firefighters and other city programs. Critics of Measure A say the city is pointing to public safety and youth program cuts as a scare tactic to get public support to help pass Measure A.

Also, in a half page Advertisement in the Press Enterprise of May 26, 2013, the supporters of Measure A (Riverside Public Utilities) stated the following in the second paragraph of their advertisement:

“But for Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), our role is also defined by what is in our name-“Public Utilities”. That means that we are owned by the community that we serve, and that each and every user who is expecting those energy and water services to be there at the flip of a switch or the turn of a tap is a shareholder in our company”.

So if Highgrove residents are “shareholders” in this public utility, the Highgrove residents who pay the City of Riverside for their water should get to vote. Aren’t we part of the “each and every user” who is expecting water to come out of the tap if we pay our water bill?

If we do not get a vote on Measure A, then our water bills should be reduced by 11.5 % so we are not paying for services that we do not receive. The money diverted into the general fund is totally unrelated to paying our water bill and opponents say it is a violation of proposition 218 which was approved back in 1996.

Measure A is on the June 4, 2013 ballot. If you received a 4 page flyer addressed to “Postal Customer” and you live outside the city limits, you will not get to vote about your 11.5 % of your payment going to other uses in the City of Riverside. But if you do not pay the entire amount of your water bill, you will be considered delinquent and subject to having your water shut off. Even if Measure A passes you may see more lawsuits about the legality of this vote and how revenue is being collected for water service and used for other purposes.

ETHIC’S COMPLAINT: JUST A FORMALITY? COUNCIL NO SHOW, BUT LAWYERED UP FOR ETHICS SHOWDOWN: PANEL FINDS NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS BY COUNCIL..SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED?

I guess the question becomes what is the purpose of a ethics panel but a visual formality designed to fail for the residents, and each time based on criteria, fall in favor of the complainnant by an orchestrated series of line items.

Holley Whatley, a outside Prop 218 attorney, hired by council in care of you the taxpayer to represent them, stated it is not up to the council to decide whether the language in Measure A was improper, it is up to the courts to decide.

Originally Measure A language was criticized, because it remained a violation of Prop. 218, the very reason the City was sued in the first place. The Measure was sold to the public as a charter amendment, rather than a tax. This was brought to council attention early on. Later during the campaign the City and its staff were changing their tune and had to admit it was a general tax. Certainly the ballot Measure states one thing, but it

Justin Scott Coe, “I feel people fully understood what they were voting on.”

Norman Powel, Chair, “I have some problem with the wording, but I’m not a constitutional attorney.”

But does the council have a duty to research and investigate the correctness of an issue before a decision is made in the best interest of the taxpayer? Does the same apply to the Ethics Panel? If so why does the criteria to elude to a finding contradict it’s design? Is it simply constructed to always resolve in an appropriate and desired conclusion? So far there has never been a conclusive finding when a complaint has been filed. Why is that, well when you look at the overally construction, it appears that the criteria in order to reach a finding, is orchestrated and designed to reach a conclusion of a favorable resolve for the City, not for the residents. Each and every time, therefore, is the Ethics Panel only a formality? A distraction? A concerted formula designed by a legal eagle to resolve in a favorable conclusion each and every time? Well, to many in the community it appears so.

THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE CONTINUES TO REFER TO MEASURE-A AS A “GENERAL TAX!”

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In both these documents the City of Riverside initially referred to Measure A as a ‘Charter Amendment.” Even City Attorney Gregory Priamos in his impartial analysis as indicated in this ballot insert, he states this is a ‘Charter Amendment.’ It was a different story on June 4, 2013 at City Council whereby City Attorney Priamos made the following public statement:

On June 4, 2013 a General Municipal Election was held for the purpose of submitting a “general tax” to the qualified electors pursuant to Article 13C of the California Constitution.

This General tax was submitted to the qualified electors and Designated as Measure A on the ballot, The Riverside Local Services and Clean Water Measure proposed to add 1201.4 to the city charter, to authorize a “general tax” pursuant to Article 13 c of the California Constitution.

The No on Measure A committee has repeatedly stated that Measure A violates Prop 218 and that voters cannot approve a charge on a water bill which will be used for anything other than water purposes. This is inaccurate.

Article 13 c expressly provides that the voters can approve a general purpose tax, such as Measure A.

Article 13 d applies to property related fees, and is not, or has ever been at issue here.

To hold that voters cannot vote to decide upon Measure A, would take away the power of the voters under the CA Constitution to vote on taxes. The city manager and I have repeatedly responded to this inaccurate assertion on an almost weekly basis at City Council Meetings in April, May and June, leading up to the election.

Moreover, the City Manager specifically noted during his presentation on May 7 discussion calendar, that Measure A is a “general purpose tax”. The City Manager detailed the financial support that Measure A would provide to the General Fund.

Deputy District Attorney Susan Wilson further reinterated during City Council Discussion on May 7, 2013 that this was a “general purpose tax” under Article 13 c of the California Constitution.

Most importantly the city met its legal obligation under the expressed terms of the settlement agreement, that the revenue transfer, which is how it is defined in the settlement, be submitted to the voters for approval at the June election. On June 4, 2013 the voters approved this general tax by an overwhelming majority in accord with Proposition 218. The voters have now spoken and the city will act in accord with the will of the voters.

What Priamos forgot to mention was that the majority of voters read it as a Charter Amendment; except Justin Scott Coe of the Ethics Panel who saw general tax somewhere in there… Initially the City was parading around the City Council Members, City Manager Scott Barber, Chief of Police Sergion Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Earley on a City wide Measure A informational tour. Chief Earley at the Goeske Center was pinned by one resident, who he then admitted to the public that Measure A was a general tax. City Manager Scott Barber had to follow shortly and admit the same. In the following document, the city is already working, it states that they are ‘not increasing water rates’ but are planning to ‘consider modifications’ to it’s water rates… Okay does anybody smell something fishy, or is it just me? Further it states they want to ‘amend water rate schedules.’

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Don’t forget to show to question these activities on Friday July 19, 2013, Public Utilities Board Room at 8:30 am, 3901 Orange Street, Riverside, CA

JULY 4TH, 2013, HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA! BELATED BUT HAVE WE FORGOTTEN?

Posted: July 7, 2013 in Uncategorized

Folks we are facing the passing of the fourth of July, the day of Independence, but have we forgotten our past? In fact a brutal past? Wasn’t this an exercise in independence? An exercise to be different? Non conformist? Is it still worth fighting for? Has ‘politically correctness’ become a severance point in which we have become forgetful of our true roots as a nation. The question is, do we truly deserve America? Can we as a people truly handle the revolutionary ideas of our forefathers? Have these ideas just simply become passé. Has politically correct been a divisive avenue in the separation of political points of view? Has it been a directly responsible for our current excuse for what we have become as a people for the government, as oppose to the government by the people? What has become of our drive? Our resistance to the status quo? Have we let down our forefathers? Have we’ve become so complacent as an American people that we’ve forgotten our duty to question authority, authority in reference to those we as an American people elect and place in office. Do we truly know whom we place in office? This I say when we place our vote based on what we believe is true? Based on what we as citizens receive in paraphernalia from whom we receive from government or campaign sources. Should we believe this information is sound and true? Are we comfortable with government doing the thinking for us. Are we comfortable with government mandating the simplest expressions of our First Amendment rights invalid? These are questions to ponder this Fourth in passing.

This is really about maintaining command and control. We wouldn’t want local peasants getting the idea that they have a say in government. We can’t tolerate freedom of expression unless people clap for whom the council approves of. – Paul Jacobs from Temecula, Commenter on the Press Enterprise

We as the City of Riverside have embraced the thoughts and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, when it come to freedom of speech, so much we place this granate etching in front of City Hall..

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates. – Benjamin Franklin, “On Freedom of Speech and the Press”, Pennsylvanial Gazette, 17 November 1737

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – This was written by Franklin, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).

Has it simply become to difficult and too late to retrieve the rights that we have lost so far as a nation, and will it take a fight to get them back? Can we afford to continue to lose now what we may have taken for granted?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: STONEFACE COUNCIL SIT’S WATCHING, WHILE SECOND CITIZEN ARRESTED…FOR APPROVAL CLAPPING!

Posted: June 26, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: chief sergio diaz, citizens arrest, city council, city of riverside, clapping, karen wright, letitia pepper, mayor rusty bailey, riverside police department

On June 25, 2013 at City Council in the City of Riverside, Letitia Pepper, Esq., former Best, Best & Krieger Attorney, was arrested for clapping in approval of statements made by public speakers. If you recall, public speaker Karen Wright was arrested last November 2012 for speaking 16.8 seconds over the 3 minute rule. Mike Fine, Deputy Superintendent of RUSD, went over the 3 minute with no provocation or arrest by the mayor.. Regardless, Mayor William Rusty Bailey, as an audience member coined, “Lil Hitler”, felt strongly enough to sign the citizen’s arrest form that activated the arrest of Ms. Pepper. Bailey, a government teacher, should know the constructs of the First Amendment, otherwise, what was he teaching his students? A little power can certainly make you forget that you are there to serve the public.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL VIDEO OF MS. PEPPER, ESQ., DISCUSSING THE RIGHT TO CLAP.

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO VIEW ARREST OF MS. PEPPER, ESQ., ON YOUTUBE

Once she was arrested and removed from council chambers, the audience responded with clapping in support of Ms. Pepper. Was her First Amendment right of free speech impinged? It is likely that this could be explored in a law suit against the City of Riverside. What will clammed up City Attorney Gregory Priamos have to say about this? Well he’s pretty much saying nothing about nothing these days..

So why is Bailey clapping in approval without being arrested? Has he now become the decider? What will King Bailey do next? Send the masses of clappers to internment camps?

WAS THIS DOCUMENT WHAT RUFFLED THE MAYOR’S FEATHERS?

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Ten days ago this document was handed to Mayor Bailey in demand for a public apology for unlawful and discourteous actions at Council Chambers June 11, 2013. Ms. Pepper was representing three citizens, Vivian Moreno, Joel Udayke and Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding his position on no applauding during public comment. Was this in fact, a personal vendetta against former BB&K Attorney, Letitia Pepper by Mayor Bailey? Why was Ms. Pepper targeted for removal and arrest my Mayor Rusty Bailey, when there were multiply clappers? Why weren’t the other clapppers removed and arrested? Is this the Mayor’s attempt to control public participation in government? Is the arrest a show of force in an attempt to initimidate the public not to participate in government? Currently the Mayor Bailey has passed the 10 day response time. We’ve yet to hear of a statement from Mayor Bailey or even the clammed up in his office City Attorney Gregory Priamos. But is there more to Priamos’s life than we know? More to come on TMC..

THE CITATION (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

But I guess the questions many are asking these days, even those who voted for Rusty, what is he doing? Again as many residents have said, they feel the city will retaliate against them if something derrogatory is said regarding city politics. So why is it? Many are asking, is it because of the history of Rivserside, whereby a conglomerate of politically tied families made the rules and the basis for politics in the City of Riverside? Which of course includes the Bailey family. You have Mayor William Rusty Bailey’s father judge and then you have the fathers friend who was a founder of incidently, Best, Best & Krieger. Halleluah, are we actually coming to anwers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?

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? What is taking that hold on Riverside that has everything to do with old family influences? You get my drift, I wouldn’t attempt to try this case on the constitutionality of ‘clapping’ within the City of Riverside.

Will Zellerbach do anything about this? According to his campaign contributions, I guess not..

Even RPD Investigator Michael Blakely decided to get into the act as Rusty’s bouncer. Will he be asking the tough questions to Pepper as he did in the Neely Nakamura investigation? Holy Cow! even the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz was there for the arrest.. This whole endeavor perpetrated by the Mayor himself, took 4 police officers, a police vehicle, RPD Investigator Michael Blakely and of course, the Coup d’état, the double dipping Chief himself, Chief Nacho Cheese, Sergio Diaz. (Nope, nope…no police helicopter this time). We also thought the good police officers were going to take Ms. Pepper for a ride around the block with sirens blasting in a show of force to the community, that of course, clapping is not allowed at public comment. That didn’t happen, she was taking down to the Orange Station for processing and released.

SO RIVERSIDE, ARE YOU MAD ENOUGH TO ROAST THE WEENIES?

LAUNDRY DAY AT LOVERIDGE PLAZA

One homeless person was seen doing laundry in the water pool in front of City Hall on June 25, 2013.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CLAPPING..AND IT’S CERTAINLY A PROBLEM IN RIVERSIDE!

Posted: June 26, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: arrest, city of riverside, clapper, clapping, first amendment, letitia pepper, mayor rusty bailey

UPDATE: 06.27.2013: SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, SEVEN ETHICS COMPLAINTS, BE THERE TODAY AT 3:00PM MAYOR’S CHAMBERS.. THIS IN REGARDS TO THE COUNCIL INADVERTAINLY PASSING THE MEASURE A INITIATIVE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL. DID THE COUNCIL WILLFULLY MISINFORM AND MISLEAD THE VOTERS ON THE VERY NATURE OF THIS MEASURE A ISSUE! OR DID THEY JUST PASS THIS RESOLUTION 7-0 BASED ON WHAT THEIR CITY ATTORNEY HAD TO SAY?

UPDATE:06/27/2013: SLAM DUNK FOR THE COUNCIL WHO WERE A NO SHOW BUT HAD THE REPRESENTATION OF TWO ATTORNEY’S. CONTINUING THE LONG STREAK, THE ETHICS COMMITTEE PANEL FOUND NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE COUNCIL..

Clapping is our 1^st Amendment justification for existing when we feel there is a need to express a sign of approval. But will this change at City Council? Whereby have we become forgetful that one of the most important reasons for this country existing is our first amendment right of expression in a public forum. Will this cease to exist? With the Fourth of July just around the corner, will a government teacher attempt to change that? Have we become so politically correct as a society that we become afraid that a simple clap of approval may cause a divisive action to others, result in someone’s feeling being hurt or as Rusty would say as to not allow others to be included?

Or have we just become complacent and it is easier to sit and watch the world go by?

Or would we rather just bow our head in frustration as if we are carrying the whole financial world on are shoulders. How bout it Berny?

Or would it be easier to hope someone else would do the clapping for us? Even if it can’t think for itself?

Or would a thumbs up do the same? I’d clap just for double dipping…isn’t that now construed as a crime?

We can certainly clap if we approve of an event which is entertaining.

Or could we slap our own head wishing we would have clapped?

Clapping for approval is simply better than the sound of one hand clapping, or even better than receiving the clap.

Or could we just have an Orwellian software choice on Rusty’s computer which he can control the quantity of claps, and to pick and choose when a clap is allowed?

But can we just simply clap behind the scenes?

Or can we clap with complete surprise that we are clapping at all?

clapping can be for joy, and clapping for the joy of clapping…

Or clapping can be just for the hell of it, just because it appears that it is expected.

Or clapping can be elusive without focus…but it certainly better to clap than getting the clap..

Clapping could be for when you think you have a good thing going.

Or can clapping just simply get down, dirty and diabolical?

Or you can anticipate the clap? or just waited out since you are not sure when to clap.. Regardless, clapping feels good..

Or can one be to studious to clap?

do we sometimes forget what we are clapping for?

Or could we clap in hope that two holes of a donut actually fit somewhere?

Even if you are an authority figure?

Clapping can be in a line..

or it can be in unison..

or clapping can certainly be overwhelmingly…

you can certainly be king and clap

or simply a taxi driver..

Whatever the activity is it certainly cannot be done in Riverside. Especially during City Council.. because again and again you will hear the following ” We don’t applaud during public comment or otherwise, so we can include others with other opinions at the dais, so no applaud at the proceedings”.

But we could certainly clap at a bike rally, I think…I need to check..it depends on the country and the leader.

Or should we attempt to meet with clappers and find out what they are really all about?

Should we’d be told we cannot do this in the arena of the peoples arena of expression and free speech? Or should we just be happy to be just where we are? This is definitely an item to think about.. Clapping is a universal language that reaches far beyond our perception of our humanness. So why would we not want to do it? Because we are told not too?

But in any event, we look toward our human nature, we look at our provocativity, we look at the future in Riverside, has it gone bananas? Or just simply become a Banana Republic?

So shouldn’t authority just try to get along with clappers?

Well, of course there are exceptions, unless your General Clapper.. (Doesn’t he look a bit like City Manager Scott Barber?)

Words of Wisdom for a new Mayor,”If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.. – Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States

UPDATE: 06.26.2013: MAYOR WILLIAM RUSTY BAILEY DEFENDS ARREST OF FORMER BB&K ATTORNEY LETITIA PEPPER..

~~City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey~~ Sorry, Mayor Rusty Bailey

NO ON MEASURE A WEENIE ROAST ELECTION PARTY! CURRENTLY WATER WILL BE FREE, UNLESS THERE IS AN OVERNIGHT RATE CHANGE!

Posted: June 4, 2013 in Uncategorized

Hart: Why is Mayor Luv here? Bailey: Well, he’s still running the show and has put us in alot of hot water… Gardner: Heads up, fire in the hole again…

We are having a Weenie Roast to Roast the Weenies at the No on Measure A Election Party! Weenies and Water are Free! Unless there is an overnight water rate change…

I really need to take a vacation, I’m starting to hear voices. I’m still not sure which is the biggest weenie on the grill…this one seems to be ready, oops, no it isn’t. Something tells me I should increase the heat… oh heck, this one broke in half..

UPDATE: 06.04.2013: RESPONSE TO MEASURE A LOSS COMING SOON! WE THANK ALL OF RIVERSIDE FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN VOTING NO ON MEASURE A. “In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a lesser or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class, a ruling class, instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole.” — Theodore Roosevelt

Vote No on Measure A

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

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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE ON MEASURE A? ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

Posted: June 2, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: chief of police sergio diaz, city attorney greg priamos, city councilman chris mac arthur, city manager scott barber, city of riverside, councilman mike gardner, councilman steve adams, dan bernstein, elder abuse, Elections Code § 8314(d) and Gov’t Code § 8314(d), fair political practices commission, fairmont park, fire chief steve earley, former city manager brad hudson, janet goeske center, javier moreno, letitia pepper, mathew webb, mayo rusty bailey, mayor ron o. loveridge, measure a, press enterprise, riverside public utilities, seniors, vivian moreno, webb engineering

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

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

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

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

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW COMPLETE DOCUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MAILER

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

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

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

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

SO WHAT IS A D.A. TO DO?

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

Vote No on Measure A, www.noonmeasureariverside.com

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

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

JUST FOR LAUGHS…

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

MEMORIAL DAY: WE WON’T FORGET..

Posted: May 27, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: flanders fields, memorial day, moina michael, red poppy

Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

Around 1915, Moina Michael first conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Inspired by a poem “In Flanders Fields”, she wrote the following poem.

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms. Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children’s League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans’ organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their “Buddy” Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.

A war veteran from the shores of Normandy and the Phillipines, my dad has since passed, but a Memorial Day does not go by without remembering him holding my hand as a young child and stopping before a disabled veteran at a local market, where he would donate some money in exchange for a red poppy, in remembrance of those who have fallen in the line of duty.

	Adam B on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: SCANDALOUS:…
	JF on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	MarkSr on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	Christopher on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	Christopher on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	Roy Bleckert on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	Nicholas Savala on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	MarkSr on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: PHONEY FALC…
	Karol Wrotniak on TMC NEWS FLASH: SELF APPOINTED…
	J Samueles on CITY OF RIVERSIDE: SCANDALOUS:…

TMC: Thirty Miles of Corruption

Thanks For Visiting!

TMC Free Subscription

TMC Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Twitter

Blogroll

TMC CLOUD ROLL

SCAN TMC QR CODE (VIEW MOBILE)

TMC

WHO’S VISITING?

Author Archive

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: THE HUNTER HUNTING DOWN THE CORRUPTION.

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: IT’S OVER THE HILL, AND SOUBIROUS WINS THIS ONE!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: HU$H …………………..money PART 2

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: D.A. FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS ON WRIGHT! WILL CHARGES BE FILED AGAINST PEPPER ON CLAPPING?

JULY 4TH, 2013, HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA! BELATED BUT HAVE WE FORGOTTEN?

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: STONEFACE COUNCIL SIT’S WATCHING, WHILE SECOND CITIZEN ARRESTED…FOR APPROVAL CLAPPING!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CLAPPING..AND IT’S CERTAINLY A PROBLEM IN RIVERSIDE!

NO ON MEASURE A WEENIE ROAST ELECTION PARTY! CURRENTLY WATER WILL BE FREE, UNLESS THERE IS AN OVERNIGHT RATE CHANGE!

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: STRONG-ARMING SENIORS FOR A YES VOTE ON MEASURE A? ISN’T THAT ELDER ABUSE?

MEMORIAL DAY: WE WON’T FORGET..

TMC SITEMETER

VOTER LOOKUP

Thanks For Visiting!

TMC Free Subscription

TMC Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Blogroll

TMC CLOUD ROLL

SCAN TMC QR CODE (VIEW MOBILE)

WHO’S VISITING?

Author Archive

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this: