Posts Tagged ‘city attorney gary guess’

“Have I made wrong decisions? Sure, everyone does. We all make mistakes because we have imperfect information, we’re not always as mature as we should be or our emotions get the better of us. However, I can honestly say that I never made a wrong ethical decision.   –  ex-City Manager John Russo

da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” remastered by Riverside’s now former City Manager  

Has the great one been shown the entrance to the 91 Freeway?  Yes he was!  As far as we know, Council never fired a City Manager, this may be the first, and it must have been for a good reason.  But knowing Russo he probably preferred being fired to receive more bang for his buck through the taxpayer.  On the other hand, don’t you love it when Councilman Jim Perry wished him well!  The bustle and tussle of rumors were coming through the TMC notification center earlier today stating City Manager John Russo has been fired without cause, and was announced at Today’s April 17, 2018 City Council Meeting.  Fired without Cause?  Probably to avoid litiigation.  It was a 4 to 3 vote that came while Russo was performance review was being undertaken by Council in closed session.  Councilman Steve Adams, Chuck Conder, Mike Gardner and Jim Perry were the four who voted to fire City Manager John Russo.  Questions arise as to Councilman Steve Adams and Mike Gardner change in vote this time around.  Did they have a come to Jesus meeting with the godfather himself… John Tavaglione?

But what may have been the last straw for Council, was coming to the realization that a crime may have allegedly occurred.  The fact the Mayor can veto a resolution should be the focus. What our City Attorney and City Manager allegedly did is present a contract to Council without a resolution, as required by Municipal Code and/or City Charter.  Therefore the argument is that the Mayor cannot veto their employee contracts, because there is no resolution, which is true, but not without violating City Charter.  Further, there may be some culpability on Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s part, who at the time was Mayor Pro Tem and signed the Russo contract, in lieu of Mayor Bailey being in town as required by Charter.  Hence, Mac Arthur violates the rules of the City Charter by overstepping his bounds.  This was a true miscalculation in judgement.

Rumor is that Mike Hestrin’s District Attorney’s office was brought in to investigate and ask questions regarding City Manager John Russo’s contract.  Hell broke loose with City Councilman Jim Perry and City Attorney Gary Geuss, who blamed Perry for bringing the District Attorney in.  Chief Financial Officer Adam Raymond was questioned by Councilman Jim Perry of why certain relevant issues such as Russo’s vacation pay out were not brought forward to him in the name of transparency.  It seems that tension continues on the City Hall Seventh Floor with City Attorney Gary Geuss and Chief Financial Officer Adam Raymond, who always seemed to be pressed anyway, when answering relevant questions.  What did he really know?  The blame game continues.

Could Former Interim City Manager Lee McDougal be the choice for interim City Manager once again for the City of Riverside?  Lee again, comes with his own set of baggage as we indicated in prior post on TMC.  TMC knows the real story of Lee McDougal of what happened in the City of Montclair.  Let’s not forget his attempt to close camera close ups because he couldn’t handle the free speech at public comment.  Yes, Lee will be nothing more than another bobble head.

Did City Manager make a miscalculation in judgement when it came to pushing the issue of remunerations?  Riverside’s Cool Conceited City Manager was finally taken down by the old guard of Riverside.  His vanity got the best of him.

The story of John Russo is nothing new, he climbed the ladder of success and became the top dog in Alameda and Riverside and I’m sure some other unsuspecting city will be glad to have him.  He only lasted three years in the small Southern California City of Riverside, and didn’t even complete his full contract.  His arrogant personality got in his way and the Council finally may have had enough.

Were these the reasons John Russo was fired tonight?  And if so, is this the beginning of John Russo’s, and not Mayor Bailey’s, legal problems.  Local resident activist Jason Hunter sums up the problems with the Russo contract.

THE CASH OUT PROBLEM: CITY MANAGER JOHN RUSSO’S STATEMENT AT CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2018: UNBEKNOWNST COUNCILMAN JIM PERRY WHO WAS BEHIND THE RUSSO CONTRACT NEGOTIATION, APPARENTLY AND EVIDENTLY MAY NOT HAVE HAD ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPOSE A CONCLUSIVE DECISION.

According to the video City Manager John Russo told Council he would like to take more time to spend with his family and apparently not cash vacation, as opposed to using them.  But the truth of the matter he evidently cashed out the $50K vacation pay.  In addition, the mortgage loan for his home of $675K, should have been $625K, he therefore also cashed out another 50K for a total of $100K. What gives?  More culpability on Councilman Chris Mac Arthur for not doing a proper assessment on the property?  It now places City Council in a precarious position with the eyes of District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s Office clearly positioned on this activity.

According to City Manager John Russo’s statement..  “I want to be forced to take more vacation, the idea here, I work all the time, I have a kid in the bay area and a mom in a dementia ward in New York…”

“I’d like to feel that I can take that time off, and that I have to take it off, so the city saves money by my not cashing it, since I can’t cash it I can’t accrue it..so I gotta take vacation..”

Russo leaves his position with a years severance, the contract entitles Russo to receive pay and other benefits worth about $471,000 this year and a course his $675,000 low-interest home loan.  Not to shabby for a short stint, now he will travel to another unsuspecting town.  CFO Adam Raymond fumbles to find words to answer simple direct questions by Mayor of cash outs by the City Manager.  Interesting enough, Russo interrupts.  While the council fired him without cause… they are going to wish that he was.  Because if they know or find that there was behavior to knowingly defraud the Council and the taxpayer, that would be a felony, and also known as misappropriation of funds.

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY? RIVERSIDE ACTIVIST JASON HUNTER GIVES THE LOW DOWN ON THE LOU DESMOND & CO RADIO SHOW TODAY: 04.18.2018

 

COMMENTS FROM THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, WE ARE ASPIRING TO BE IN THAT REALM OF HONOR!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “SCANDALOUS,” “NEGATIVE,” “WARPED,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “INDECENT,” “REPUGNANT,””IMMORAL,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

Two men making a deal isolated at the white background

THE GRESHAM SAVAGE DEAL: A WIN, WIN FOR GRESHAM SAVAGE, AGAIN AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

The taxpayers just bought a $40 million dollar building, how do we help maintain it?  Sublease some space from a partner in crime know as the legal outfit of Gresham Savage?  With that in mind, the City Attorneys office who gets paid by the taxpayer will be paying rent in their new taxpayer paid building.

gscityleaseagreement

CLICK THIS TO VIEW FULL COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ON THIS ISSUE

So how does all this benefit the taxpayer?  It won’t, the fact of the matter is that it will cost an additional $411.035.00 from the taxpayer!  Currently, the City Attorneys occupation of the 5th Floor of City Hall has a yearly cost of $208,039.00.  The total annual cost in rent the City would pay to Grease-Them-Savagley would be $548,046.00.  Bad deal at a cost to the taxpayer.  Of course the other side are emphasizing that we need the space!  We are hiring more attorneys and the cubicles at City Hall do not allow for privacy for sensitive legal issues.  But why is the City Attorney’s Office anticipating hiring more lawyers?  The City of Riverside already has approximately about 13 (not sure)? But we want to hire more, not to include all the other outside legal firms we may have contracted and on retainer.  City of Moreno Valley with a population of 200K has two attorney’s.  The City of Murreta with a population of 100K has one. The question, is how many laws suits against the City are we receiving?  If that is what is happening, why is it happening?  Why is the City receiving so much liability?

This completely smells of Deja Vu with the bad deal made with Developer Mark Rubin’s building Citrus Towers.  We initially assumed Best, Best & Krieger’s lease so that they could move to his new building.  RPU taking over this lease to move into this gold plated building, cost the taxpayers a pretty penny which shouldn’t have happened, because we had plenty of taxpayer properties that could have been occupied at low  expense.  But is this culture of elitism whereby the real interest of the taxpayers doesn’t really matter?  What happened to public service and public servants?

TMC did a story on this very issue back in July 2011 called: I’LL TAKE A DOUBLE RUBIN ON A BB&K WITH RPU ON THE SIDE!

At this time the City Attorney’s Office, along with Riverside Public Utilities will now reside in the $40 million dollar Wells Fargo building.  With that in mind, the best part is that the City, in the best of interest of the taxpayer was able to negotiate a rate of $2.50 per rentable square foot to $2.25 per square foot. Along with this there will also be a one time cost of a $125, 000.00 to cover the cost of moving, new furniture, fixtures and equipment.  This at a time when City Manager John Russo is going around town to public meetings stating that we don’t have money and need tighten our belts.

Untitled-2

According to local residents, the City refuses to give a tour to them on this Gold Plated building.  You paid for a $40 million dollar building, but you can’t see what you bought!  Is the America you want to live in?  One was told that City Manager John Russo and even Councilman Mike Gardner said “no!”  As a result, following records request was sent by Attorney Raychele Sterling.

To: Nicole Roa <droa@riversideca.gov>, jrusso@riversideca.gov, ggeuss@riversideca.gov, Sherry Morton-Ellis <SMorton@riversideca.gov>, “Nicol, Colleen” <cnicol@riversideca.gov>, “Allen, Susan” <sallen@riversideca.gov>
Cc: Alicia Robinson <arobinson@pe.com>, cmacduff@pe.com, “Davis, Paul” <pdavis@riversideca.gov>

In light of the Public Utilities Director’s and Councilman Mike Gardner’s (with the alleged concurrence of the City Manager) refusal to permit a tour of the recently remodeled PU facility located on University Avenue by members of the community who are critical of PU’s extravagant expenditures (while allowing other  non-critical members of the public to observe the facility), please make the following available for my review:

1) Entire project file for the PU Board Room/Multi Purpose Room remodel (including all photographs).

2) All Purchase Orders and Purchase Requisitions for the past 5 years for the procurement of any furniture (module or stationary), electronics (excluding PCs, Printers, Photocopiers), art, photography or sculptures, appliances (including refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves etc.) flooring, tile and carpet for Riverside Public Utilities.

3) A list of all participants (including the Chamber of Commerce members) in ANY tour of ANY City Facility and all accompanying releases of liability for the past 5 years. I personally have observed and participated in tours of the Sewer Treatment Plant, RERC, Orange Square and Utilities Plaza, as well as witnessed the execution of releases of liability by members of the public for such tours.

4) Any current policies and procedures regarding touring of City facilities by members of the public. 5) All releases for PU’s “Bring Your Daughter to Work Day”, as well as a list of the facilities where these individuals were permitted to be for the past five years.

6) All releases for any “Bring your Child to Work Day”, “Shadow the Mayor Day” or “Shadow a Council Member Day”, Grade School tours, or the like, and a list of any and all facilities these individuals were permitted to be in for the past five years.

7) List of any currently scheduled or proposed tours of ANY City Facility by any individuals or group. Please identify the facilities intended to be toured.

8) A List of all PU facilities (please identify specific rooms as well) that were open to the public to attend City and/or Utility meetings within the past 5 years.

9) A list of all City employees who have provided tours of ANY City facility to members of the public.

Upon review, I will determine what documents I would like to duplicated. Thank you

Raychele Sterling, Esq.

WHAT IS THE STORY ON THIS SMALL PIECE OF CITY LAND THAT A BASKETBALL COURT AND TENNIS COURT WERE BUILT ON?

No one seems to know how a Tennis Court and Basketball Court was built on City Land!  Even Development Director Emilio Ramirez didn’t have an answer for Council.  The issue (Item #14) was removed from the Consent Calender by Council.  According to Ramirez, City documents could not be found which showed a timeline of permits for building etc.

Untitled-2

CLICK ON PIC TO ENLARGE

  pic    1    2

CLICK ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE 

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”.  WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

frontpgWATER LAW SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL LAW SUIT)

On June 4, 2015, the City of Riverside, under newly christened City Attorney Gary Geuss filed suit against the State of California with regards to the issue of having to comply with a 24% cut in usage.  The city asked the state in the suit to include it in a program that lets Northern California entities get away with just 4% cuts because they are taking their water from surface sources, like rivers that are going to dump their contents in the sea if not snatched. The State ignored the City’s request. Riverside gets its water from underground sources, not the surface, and that’s a critical difference to the state.  The problem stems from the Board’s definition of a “reliable water source;” namely, the designation refers only to surface water and not groundwater, or water located underneath the earth’s surface.  So the City filed the above lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court to stop the State Water Resources Control Board from commanding our City to comply.

In its complaint, Riverside asked the state why a “groundwater-sufficient entity” couldn’t be inserted and was told, “It would simply be too difficult to include groundwater in the 4% tier, but provided no evidence why including groundwater suppliers would be any more difficult than including surface water suppliers. No other reason was giving for listening to one class of water suppliers, but ignoring the other class of water suppliers.”  KPCC said Riverside’s lawsuit was the largest objection registered to date against the state’s water policy. Water districts are just now beginning to implement government directives which aim to implement Governor Jerry Brown’s order that water usage be cut 25% among statewide nonagricultural users. The cuts range between 8% and 36%, compared to comparable time periods in 2013.  Riverside wants a temporary restraining order and injunction to avoid $10,000-a-day fines for noncompliance with an emergency order.

Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination.  Simpson tells City Attorney Geuss that he forgot the “winning” argument against the State of California!  The residents have a “contractual right” to water in the City of Riverside, therefore the State of California has no right to impose water restrictions!  The right to water in the City of Riverside is tied to every resident who owns property, for perpetuity.  What is important to note in this law suit is that the City of Riverside admits owning water rights pre-1914, which releases us from the constraints of the Governor Moonbeams imaginary drought emergency.  What people need to realize we are in the year of “El Nino” and we will receive a boat load of water this year, more than we can handle.  Unfortunately, the State of California cannot run a business, how can we allow them to run the State?

SCOTTVIDEOTWOCLICK THIS LINK TO HEAR WHAT CITY ATTORNEY GARY GEUSS FORGOT TO PLACE IN THE LAW SUIT TO PROTECT RESIDENTS WATER RIGHTS, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTS “CONTRACTUAL RIGHT” TO THAT WATER.

Simpson states that water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians according to the California State Water Resources Control Board. California’s waters cannot be owned by individuals, groups, businesses, or governmental agencies. But permits, licenses, and registrations give individuals and others the right to beneficially use reasonable amounts of water. That’s paraphrased from the California State Constitution. The precise language states that the people of the State of California own the water resources of the State for their use and enjoyment.

scottvideooneCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WATER EXPERT SCOTT SIMPSON TALK ABOUT RESIDENTS RIGHT TO WATER

Water Expert Scott Simpson then states that the State of California is the care taker of the water, in charge of improving the quality and making more water available for their use. You are not selling us water you are you provide us with the service of transportation for our use and enjoyment.  So why has the State of California unfortunately betrayed the taxpayers?  Some terms come to mind, “greed,” “incompetence,” “over construction,” and “ineptness.”  Where’s the accountability?  Well folks that will never transpire.

stateofcaqa     stateofcaqatwo

CLICK TO VIEW IMAGES OR CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SITE WHICH SIMPSON WAS REFERRING TO

Riverside Public Utilities deputy general manager Kevin Milligan said the city wants the water board to include groundwater in its definition of a reliable water supply.  “The only difference is surface water you can see and groundwater you can’t,” Milligan told the paper.  “We have our own wells and our own water resources,” Riverside Public Utilities spokesperson Heather Raymond told the Los Angeles Times. “No matter how much we save it has zero effect on the state water supply.”  Riverside gets its water from groundwater basins it controls and has a four-year supply on hand. That’s the minimum necessary to be included in the 4% tier. Over the years, the city has drilled wells, captured storm water, invested in a water treatment plant and spent millions on a recycled water infrastructure, Riverside Public Utilities Deputy General Manager Kevin Milligan told the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

The question then became, the City of Riverside doesn’t really have to comply with the State Resources Control Board, since our water rights are pre-1914, and the Control Board was set up thereafter.  Further, the residents who own property in the City of Riverside have a “contractual right” to the that water, as a result of those water rights given to us by a court of law prior to 1914.  The city says it hasn’t imported water from the Colorado River or the State Water Project since 2008.  According to the Courthouse News Service, the city’s complaint says, “(A)ny water that Riverside does not extract will sit in the basin, and cannot be extracted or used by others. Riverside is truly ‘water independent.’ ”  This is something to remember folks, because the City of Riverside is mandated by law to harvest “x” amount of water.  Water cannot be conserved and sit in the ground.  If it does, it can go beyond the acceptable water table, and cause damage and weakness to surrounding infrastructure.

garyguessjokers

Riverside City Attorney Gary Geuss, with double indemnity prior clown behind him, a tough circus act to follow!

Has anybody seen the moniker around town stating “I Own It?”  What does that mean?  It means that if you are a homeowner in the City of Riverside you actually have a “contractual right” to water and you therefore own the “public utilities.”  You may ask, “Why does the City state we are “shareholders” as a result of owning property attached to a home, and then be treated as we are not?”  The straight answer is that the Riverside Water Board represents City interest, therefore not the best interest of the taxpayers is considered.  The only way to protect your rights, your right to water etc. is to form a “taxpayer advocacy” group which will lobby for our rights as homeowners and property owners.

We haven’t even addressed those residents who own rights to the Gage Canal water etc., they can pretty much run there water down the street if they want. There is no drought restriction for them! The point is that are city forefathers made sure there would not be a problem with the access of this important commodity, and this was insured years ago, and pre-1914.  Therefore, are rights to that groundwater should be fought for with a vengeance.  It is as the squirrel who prepared themselves for the winter and stored his food supply early.  Another squirrel comes about, who didn’t prepare, and wants to take it away.  That is what the State of California is attempting to do.

RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMITS WE ARE PRE-1914 BY ADVERTISING PROMO.. CUSTOMER OWNED SINCE 1895.

img040two  enlarge1895ownership

What City of Riverside residents must know about the drought misinformation, is that the residents have a “contractual right” to water prior to 1914. Which means that we as a City do not have to comply with the laws regarding drought mandated by Governor Edmund G. Brown, also known as “Moonbeam.”  According to Riverside Public Utilities own advertisement, we have been publicly and customer owned since 1895!  You therefore are not receiving correct information.  Every homeowner in the City of Riverside has a contractual right to water from the publicly owned Bunker Hill Basin in San Bernardino.  The next big question Riversidian’s should be asking is why we as a publicly owned utility should have to advertise to ourselves?  The Riverside Public Utilities spends multitudes of money to promote, which is technically, a public monopoly with reference to utilities.  WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ADVERTISE?  Is it to divert monies to those special clients in the advertising business?  Can this be interpreted as a gift of public funds?  It’s all wrong and should not be done!  Further, the ratepayers demand the utility overages refunded back!  Don’t attempt to try to craft new language and use are reserves to purchase another $40 million dollar building.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN….

1907-riv-randa-railway-002-600

RIVERSIDE & ARLINGTON RAILWAY CO. (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”.  WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:  THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM