Posts Tagged ‘city attorney gregory priamos’

GJ072015    GJ072015two    GJ072015three     GJ072015four copy

CLICK TO ENLARGE TO VIEW JULY 2, 2015 GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY PRIAMOS.

2014 2015 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Board of Supervisors Transparency Grand Jury Interference (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW PDF VERSION)

untitled

COUNTY COUNSEL CONSIGLIERE GREGORY PRIAMOS

According to the latest report released by the Grand Jury on July 2, 2015, they believe they were retaliated against by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, when on April 8, 2014, the 2013-2014 Riverside County Grand Jury made public a report entitled, “Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors”. This report focused on the use of Community Improvement Designation (CID) Funds and was critical of the way some of the funds were utilized.

Fifty-eight days later, they state, a new County of Riverside County Counsel with a “controversial reputation, a known history of Grand Jury interference, and over the objections of many concerned citizens, was unanimously appointed by the Board of Supervisors.”  According to the Grand Jury the following report is what started it all … or, in other words, HOW DARE THEY QUESTION OUR USE OF PUBLIC MONEY TO BOLSTER OUR CAMPAIGNS!?

gjreportcampaignreform

2013 2014 Grand Jury Report – Political Reform and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (24 pages) CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL REPORT

Three main points were made in this newest release by the Riverside County Grand Jury with reference to County Counsel Gregory Priamos.

The first focused on the bid process.  An anonymous Supervisor’s Chief of Staff, during testimony, was asked how extensive the geographic area was when the ‘Supes recruited for the position of County Counsel.  His reply?  “Three blocks.”  Although not required, the Board of Supervisors chose not to use competitive procedures, and instead handed a $250,000/year position with lavish benefits over to a buddy of theirs.  Was this was not Supervisor Marion Ashley’s Chief of Staff, Jaime Hurtado, whom we hear is being groomed to take over Ashley’s position?

Second, the Grand Jury had issues with Priamos’ “interference,” in their investigation.  Priamos in an email, asked that all County Departments and Special Districts contact his office (specifically, Anita Willis and Jeb Brown – his main squeeze at the City of Riverside) immediately if contacted by the Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury wants transparency and the truth when they interview people.  The Grand Jury believes this message was sent to control County employees out of fear of retaliation should they not be able to speak privately with them.  Nothing new to us hear at Thirty Miles: just Gregory attempting to have control of the message as he did in the City of Riverside.

Third, Priamos’s contract with the County should immediately be “nullified!”  This means that the Grand Jury feels that the County Board of Supervisors did not execute best practices for the hiring of a qualified (cough, cough…ethical) County Counsel.  Therefore, the Grand Jury is requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct an actual, advertised recruitment for the position of County Counsel so that the best candidate can be appointed as County Counsel to serve the people of the Inland Empire.  Opps..sorry Greg!  That means somebody who is “not you.”

Since in his letter to county employee, Priamos references the County Executive Officer, Jay Orr, as his co-conspirator, perhaps the Grand Jury ought to investigate that angle as well, and whether Orr needs to be replaced…

Orr2013

County of Riverside, Executive Fool Officer, Jay Orr

County Sups, Just a Chain of Fools?

RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES SAYS, “WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER…”

puletter

What is not covered in the above memo is that if the State of California was really serious about the drought, they would place on moratorium on new development … of course that’s about as likely as the Gov Moonbeam’s bullet train coming in under budget.

So many issues with the current policies, we hardly know where to begin.  While some are tearing out their front yards, if you have a pool, that’s exempt!  What if you have a share of the Gage Canal water, which many homeowners do? …exempt!

Untitled-1   intro-4-lg

In the City of Riverside, Brown is not only Sexy, it’s beautiful!  Our front lawns may be brown but are back yard pools are bright blue full of water!  Why is that folks?  It could be that the City of Riverside has a Contractual Obligation to Riverside Property Owners to Provide Water!  The City of Riverside has Pre-1914 Water Rights to Ground Water from the Bunker Hill Basin.  Which means that we are not in control of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Why? Because we have our own Board, Why? Because we as a City own Our Water Rights!  The Leadership of the City of Riverside misguided you, the taxpayer, to believe otherwise.  Causing by their incompetence, that they, the Council, would like you to pay more to cover their illegitimate transgressions.  Not to mention the illegitimate transgressions of your Pretty Boy Mayor, William Rusty Bailey.  Vote No on Measure-Z 2016!  Again those you have placed in leadership positions have deceived you!  You will be paying more for the Heroes you thought were Heroes..Fire and Police.  They are not are Heroes when it comes to scamming the taxpayer for perceived increases in pension and salary increases.

swimmingpoolnotatthistime

click this image to enlarge (click this link to go to the city source)

Riverside is unique in that we own our water.  Twenty percent is sold to outside locals.  So why are we conserving, while the city is mandated by law to harvest “x’ amount of water from the Bunker Hill Basin or lose those rights!  New City Attorney Gary Geuss file a lawsuit on behalf of the public asking the State to reverse their requirements since we own our own water.  What he forgot to tell the State is that the City has a “contractual” association with the homeowners that requires them to provide water.  What this means is that it trumps the State Water Drought Declaration.  More on this to come.  What’s more egregious is that the city of Riverside is asking their residents to be “snitches” on their neighbors concerning the new restriction, which will of course cause further undo tension and discourse in the community…for absolutely no good reason.

BREAKING STORIES FROM THE PRESS ENTERPRISE REFERENCING RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES.

JULY 04, 2015: CITY FIELDS QUESTION ON UTILITY RESERVES  The question arises from community activists, based upon and city of Riverside public utility documents, whether its ratepayers, that’s you and me for the uninitiated, have over-charged for services over the past decade.  The reserves have grown beyond what City official policies state, thereby violating those rules.  The the city was caught with their pants down, so they’re crafting language for new policy, and spinning the criticism.  We ask why is RPU General Manager, Girish Balanchandran, rewriting policy, if it wasn’t followed to begin with?  Seems to us like a waste of time if the City’s just going to do whatever the heck it wants anyway.

There is no question in our minds that the new policy will be written specifically to bring into conformance the existing policy violations, so that no one ever has to take any accountability….same ‘ole, same ‘ole.  The right thing to do would be to return the excess funds back to the ratepayers.  But that will be a challenge: your public utilities (“We Own It!”) currently does not work in your best interests.  What the City has done to the ratepayers over the years is just plain wrong.

JULY 02, 2015: RIVERSIDE: RESIDENTS WANT TO AX UTILITY TAX  A common theme: residents are fed up with all the taxation.  TMC is asking for your support to be part of a Ratepayer Advocacy Group that would serve as a watchdog on utility practices, and hopefully prevent some of the abuses we’ve suffered under the Loveridge/Hudson/Priamos (and their cronies) years.  The Board of Public Utilities does not advocate for the taxpayer, but for the city.

Finance Director Brent Mason stated that the utility user tax brings in $30 million a year to the general fund to pay for police, fire, parks and other services …. we thought that was what the General Fund Transfer was for!?  Seems to us like double taxation.

More Information on the Utility User Tax (click this link).

The utility users tax is not a sales tax (the State administers those); it’s an excise tax. Riverside residents pay the City for the “luxury” of gas, water, electric, and phone service. I don’t know about you, but those don’t seem like luxuries to me. They should all be repealed. The City needs to stop abusing its residents through excessive taxation in the form of fees like the Utility Users Tax and General Fund Transfer at its public (aka, monopoly) utility or risk losing them both…and maybe even its entire utility…in the process. My belief is that the City is breaking the social compact to provide these services at “cost plus” and will pay a steep price if it doesn’t come to the table soon with those that want reform at RPU. Just my two cents. – Jason Hunter, commentor to the Press Enterprise

THANK YOU CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND SUPPORTERS OF TMC FOR REACHING 200,000 HITS!  

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “DISGUSTING,” “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,” “ABOMINABLE,” “APPALLING,” “DETESTABLE,” “SLEAZY,” “SLANDEROUS,” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ARE ALL OF THIS, WE ADMIT IT, SO PLEASE…DO NOT READ IF OFFENDED!  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

clownpriamosjail
WILL THIS LEGAL CLOWN FROM THE GOVERNMENT BIG TOP FINALLY BE SENT TO BIG HOUSE?

According to a newly releases internal audit targeting outside legal expenditures of former City Attorney Greg Priamos’ office, taxpayers have much to be concerned about.  TMC brought this issue to light directly to the City Council several times over the years, and in two specific stories – one in 2012 and the other followup in 2014 – only to be ignored.  However, the real purveyor of this issue was community activist, Kevin Dawson, who has been bringing this issue to the forefront of City Council for the past five years, of course, on deaf ears.

Will this finally be what will break the camel’s back as far as Priamos’ career in municipal law goes?  For many years we have been attempting, in the name of transparency, to retrieve public records, which would finally shed some light on the expenditures by the City of Riverside’s Attorney Office.  No records were ever found, or as City lingo goes, “we found no documents responsive to your request,” or the documents we requested violated the “Attorney/Client Privilege.”

We ask the question: did the City Attorney’s Office go rogue?  Didn’t anyone do a background check into Priamos? Just like, did anyone do a background check on former City Manager Brad Hudson?  Hudson was not only had a history of credit card fraud, but attempted to attain concealed weapons permit using the Riverside City Hall address as his “home address.”

Do ethics matter?  When Riverside was using Mayer Hoffmann McCann as their external auditor, Ken Al-Iman from MHM  worked as an adviser for locally-connected law firm, Best, Best & Krieger.  While MHM was doing Riverside’s books, former City Manager, Brad Hudson, hired Al-Imam’s son, Jason Al-Imam, who experienced a meteoric rise, eventually being named Controller for Riverside.

We believe ethics do matter, and make note of Mayor William Bailey’s eulogy at Hudson’s farewell party that Hudson was his, “moral compass.”  How appropriate that both these individuals have a background of, “ill repute.”  Of course we’d be remiss to leave out former Mayor Ron Loveridge from the picture, who appears to still be the puppeteer of all events of concern involving the politics of the city of Riverside.

So back to the audit: the report was grim to say the least, and the findings were what most of Riverside’s watchdogs had believed for many years.  Priamos did not: 1) follow the City’s competitive selection process for procuring outside legal counsel and 2) execute written contracts/agreements.  Written contracts/agreements insure that the taxpayers are not overcharged and also help prevent abuses such as potential conflicts of interest, failure to provide timely service and perception of favoritism/nepotism.  For example, the law firm of Roth Carney Knudsen LLP did business with the City for years.  It also happens to be law firm of now-Senator Richard Roth, the husband of Cindy Roth, who is the CEO/President of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, who happens to milk the City every opportunity she has.

Five-Year Citywide Review

Five-Year Citywide Review

Performance Audit of Outside Legal (Click this link)

 

JUNE 2015 GRAND JURY REPORT ON FORMER CITY ATTORNEY/CURRENT COUNTY COUNSEL GREG PRIAMOS’ BOORISH BEHAVIOR.   The Grand Jury panel recommended training for clown Priamos, not the other way around, as he arrogantly implied they needed.  The panel noted that Priamos has interfered with their investigations, and that he has given misleading advice to county employees.  That wasn’t groundbreaking news to TMC: Priamos had given misleading/self-serving advice to city employees and electeds here in Riverside for over a decade.

The Grand Jury has accused Priamos of 10 violations as follows, (sounds like another Bar Complaint): Conflict of Interest and Secrecy; Transparency and Accountability; Inaccurate, Incomplete and Misleading Statements; Obstruction of the Grand Jury; Choice of Having Council Violations; Violation of Board Policy C-35; Riverside County Executive Office Violation; Violation of Code of Ethics (he is incidentally writing the code of ethics book for the California League of Cities); Failure to Provide Upjohn Warning; and Superior Court Case Violations.

Untitled-2

 2015 Grand Jury Report – Riverside County Office of County Counsel, Greg Priamos (click this link to view)

Back in 2013, former County Counsel Pamela Walls fired off a letter to Priamos, while he was City Attorney, that he violated the confidentiality of the Grand Jury in its probe into City Police Procedures.  Of course, Priamos denied the charge.  Well not so fast, the letter is part of the Grand Jury report as seen below.

 letterone    lettertwo    letterthree

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Was the Grand Jury attempting to tell Priamos that there is a, “failure to communicate,” and possibly there are, “some men that just can’t be reached?”  Therefore these individuals need to be dealt with “in a proper manner”?  Gregory, there are some who say you are a sociopath, and we’d like to to extend our desire to help.  As LMU and USC graduates (just like you), you know we are practically family.  Is there anything we can do to help you get the treatment you so obviously need?

OTHER RELATED TMC GREG PRIAMOS STORIES:

05.16.2015: GREGORY PRIAMOS: FORMER CITY CLOWN AND CURRENT COUNTY CLOWN COMING DOWN FOR THE FALL!

05.20.2014: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CITY ATTORNEY’S OUTSIDE LEGAL: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING CONTRACTS SINCE WE HAVE A CHARGE CARD!: AN UPDATE

05.06.2014: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: IS CITY ATTORNEY GREG PRIAMOS AND CITY HIRED ATTORNEY DOUG SMITH LIARS? KEITH NELSON SEEMS TO THINK SO!

01.25.2013: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: AS OF SUNDAY 03.25.2013 DAY 153 STILL NO CHARGES! KAREN WRIGHT NOT GIVEN THE RIOT ACT AT COURT APPEARANCE?

11.13.2012: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: CITY ATTORNEY: I APOLOGIZE, SORT OF…

08.29.2012: CITY OF RIVERIDE: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: THE PRIAMOS TAPE: IS THIS INSURANCE FRAUD? IS THIS PENSION SPIKING?

05.21.2012: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINK’N CONTRACTS!”

A little Chain Gang Music to help Greg get accustom to his possible new surroundings…  Maybe his pal Sheriff Sniff might be his mate..wouldn’t that be nice!

Don’t forget to purchase the tell all book on the Priamos Famiglia on Amazon written by his own cousin Paula Priamos! You won’t be able to put it down!

shystersdaughter

CLICK THIS LINK TO PURCHASE THE BOOK ON AMAZON

 

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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

 complaintone

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE FULL BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST GREGORY PRIAMO BY VIVIAN MORENO

letterone

COMPLAINT RECEIPT FROM STATE BAR

According to Riverside County’s Grand Jury, Riverside County’s Counsel, Gregory Priamos’, Office has been accused of interfering and hindering with it’s investigation of the County of Riverside’s  IT department.  Of course, that’s nothing new here.  We in the City of Riverside have been dealing with Priamos’ clown tactics for years.  Hopefully, this signals the end of his run of the clown corruption, and this Bozo will finally be placed in clown jail where he belongs.  It’s time he paid for the malfeasance that’s been done.  The liar has cost the taxpayers millions in shabby legal advice.

This wasn’t Priamos first rodeo with the Grand Jury.  In July 2013, the Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, which Priamos ran at the time, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury.

gjpriamos
So we recently uncovered a story which similarly appears to have been the same actions Priamos is accused of.
62e98a804787780b700f6a7067003f25
Whereby a Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane was accused of a Grand Jury Leak. It appears that this AG purposely leaked this secret grand jury information to strike back at her critics, then lying about it under oath, in a case that could spell the downfall of the state’s highest-ranking female politician.  Sounds as “Classic Priamos.”  But I guess this is Riverside, and there are two sets of rules, and those who support him, being the County Supervisors and it even appears the State Bar of California, can attempt to mitigate the circumstances.  Well the taxpayers certainly know better.

Let’s of course not forget that Bozo was hiring outside legal help without contracts nor authority, to the tune of $16 million during the last 5 years he was the City Attorney.  In face, the City Attorney’s Office at Riverside was never looked at by internal audit his entire tenure as chief: what will the taxpayers find during the recently-ordered audit by the Governmental Affairs Committee?  Stay tuned.

clownpriamos

BOZO’S BIG TOP

In a classic Priamos comeback, according to the Press Enterprise, upon becoming aware of the Grand Jury’s dissatisfaction with his interference in their investigation, he offered to train the next grand jury on his office’s role…even we had to laugh at that one.  What he wants is “client control”, so he can massage the message, and redirect the Grand Jury to a favorable outcome, by the reeducation process.  The “Priamos Reeducation Process: A Study in Passive-Aggressive, Paranoid-Delusional, Obsessive Compulsive Assclownery”  Those in the loop know the scam.

The other item of contention is when his office decided to sue the registrar of voters with reference to placing the marijuana measure for the June 2015 ballot.  This could not be taken any other way, but to be a clear cut attempt to interfere with democratic process.  Further, this classic Priamos attempt was found unconstitutional according to State of California Law.  To be fair, Federal Law still classifies marijuana as a Class I drug, thus is classified as a substance which has no accepted medical use, thus illegal.  The point in this process, is that Priamos should have known the difference, but still attempted to waste millions of taxpayer monies challenging State Law, which found his argument unconstitutional.

There is also the issue of whereby his office was responsible for taking many properties from income strapped seniors and residents through the code enforcement process.  He was so proud of this, that he even had pictures of the homes taken within his office area.

CLOWNS TO THE LEFT OF ME, JOKERS TO THE RIGHT OF ME..JUST MORE OF THE SAME…

Related TMC stories on former City Attorney Gregory Priamos:(CLICK ON LINKS)

MAY 21, 2012: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: ‘WE DON’T NEED NO STINK’N CONTRACTS!’

AUGUST 29, 2012: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: IS THIS INSURANCE FRAUD? IS THIS PENSION SPIKING?

JULY 8, 2013: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: D.A. FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS ON WRIGHT! WILL CHARGES BE FILED ON PEPPER ON CLAPPING?

THE BOOK THAT’S ON THE NUMBER ONE SPOT IN RIVERSIDE: DELVE MORE INTO THE UNDERWORLD CULTURE OF THE PRIAMOS FAMILY…

The “Shyster’s Daughter,” written by Paula Priamos, cousin of our County Counsel Gregory Priamos, which takes an intricate view of the family environment in which she grew up in, is on TMC’s must-read list.

Does Greg Priamos have a family history of unscrupulous legal work?  Paula Priamos’ book gives insight to the family dysfunctionality and immoral legal dealings.  When contacted by Dvonne Pitruzzello, Paula Priamos resolved to remain distanced from her cousin.

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.”

shystersdaughter

CLICK THIS LINK TO PURCHASE THE BOOK ON AMAZON

sexsalon23_priamos_3002                             7099642-L

Riverside County Counsel Gregory Priamos               Cousin and Writer Paula Priamos

SPEAKING OF CLOWN NEWS: HAM RADIO GETS CHOPPED LIVER WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCILMAN’S PUSH TO INVESTIGATE.

The Press Enterprise article states that neighbors were at odds, but commentors who were actual neighbors, stated that had no problem with it.  Hmmmm.  Radio operator Braiman’s next door neighbors, Patti and David Moran and a realtor Patti Triplett, had enough political pull to get Councilman Mike Gardner and Deputy Development Director Emilio Ramirez involved to try to find loopholes in City’s Municipal Code, again utilizing brute squad tactics to terrorize and financially threaten this one Wood Street resident.

We note Councilman Mike Gardner is currently running for re-election for his position.  The aggrieved neighbors claim the tower is a visual eyesore and decreasing the value of their property.  These neighbors must understand that the Wood Streets are not controlled by the structured rules and regulations of a Homeowners Association.  Neighbors have the right to be left alone and not be harassed by government, or of the few who feel that all should follow their utopian vision.

nnc8m1-b88388934z.120150424180829000gdj9co2a.10    nnc8m1-b88388934z.120150424180829000gb69cg1v.10

MR. BRAIMAN’S ATTEMPT TO FIND INTELLIGENT LIFE OUTSIDE OF RIVERSIDE CAUSES NEIGHBORS TO MOVE

We at TMC have been having difficulty getting the City to help us. Around our home we have these large 50 foot wood poles, with black wires that extend about 100 feet in both directions, and are attached to yet another wood pole.  Some of these even have small trash cans attached to them.  These are eyesores and I’m convinced they have devalued numerous resident property values. The City is telling me these poles are necessary…..hogwash!

telephone_pole     index

CITY-PROTECTED VISUAL MONSTROSITIES

Kidding aside, what we seem to have here is a few influential constituents, who decide for the rest of us what is visually offensive, who lobby and employ the local government as a weapon to retaliate and terrorize a single resident. What we have not witnessed (to our knowledge) is that a majority has a problem with Mr. Braiman’s radio tower.   The ugly truth is that many residents feel they cannot come to City Council and present their views because they believe they will be retaliated by code enforcement, etc, if they do.  They see their neighbors that do complain, and observe how they are treated.  And this is how the City controls free speech: through intimidation and fear of the populace…and it needs to end if we are to prosper as a community.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST, “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

ISLETHREEDID REIKO KERR TAKE THE WALK OF SHAME?

OUR MUTUAL FRIEND: Urban legend has it that several years ago a RPU (Riverside Public Utilities) Assistant General Manager was caught leaving her boss’ hotel room during a business trip in the wee hours of the morning, looking like she was ridden hard and put up wet.  This rumor follows that a subordinate RPU employee eye-witnessed the walk of shame.  Allegedly, a letter was sent to the boss’ wife advising her of the situation, and all hell broke loose from there.  After some customary Riverside retaliation and harassment, this subordinate was eventually moved out of the division they worked in.  Why is this important? Why is this compelling? Because this behavior directly impacts the taxpayer and ratepayer. We’ll let you decide what really happened…romance or “hard” work?

In the spirit of the recent Dickens Festival, we at TMC are delighted to tell you the story (complete with flashbacks, irony, foreshadowing, symbolism, and every other literary device we learned in 10th grade) that we hope educates, entertains, and motivates … using the public documents, including travel expenses, that were provided to us courtesy of the City of Riverside at a cost of about $70.00. (Ten cents a page) That’s a lot of traveling on the taxpayer dime!

A TALE OF TWO CITY EMPLOYEES: Gary Nolff had a nice career at RPU (Riverside Public Utilities), rising from a Power Contracts Administrator in 1990, making $71,436/year until his retirement in December of 2011 as the Utilities Assistant General Manager of Resources, making over $181,392/year, with an extraordinary CalPERS retirement, paid for by we the taxpayer, waiting in the wings. If he had ridden off into the sunset, never to be heard from again, we might never have even had known he existed.

But Mr. Nolff didn’t…and our guess is by the time everything is said and done, he’ll wish he had.

In 2000, Reiko Kerr was hired by the RPU as a Utilities Principal Analyst, making $71,436/year.  By 2008, under Mr. Nolff’s “hands on” tutelage, the meteoric Ms. Kerr had reached the title of Utilities Projects/Contracts Manager, making $136,548/year. Ms. Kerr obviously enjoyed her time underneath Mr. Nolff! Today her salary is closer to $200,000.00. Have all employees of the city of Riverside tripled their salaries in 15 years?  Or was Ms. Kerr just outstanding in servicing her boss?  Inquiring minds want to know.

But like all things in the dear River City, the party couldn’t possibly stop there.  And so, with Mr. Nolff’s “retirement,” it was arranged that Ms. Kerr (who to our knowledge had exactly ZERO utilities experience in marketing, trading, operations, or planning at the time; and was by all accounts, a glorified accountant) would, without any other interviews of candidates, replace Mr. Nolff as Assistant General Manager of RPU – Resources division.  And with a whisk of his wand and a scattering of fairy dust, former General Manager David “the Kingpin” Wright made it so in early 2013.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS: Now Mr. Nolff was still a relatively young man, despite being “retired”, and decided to strike out on his own…well, sorta/kinda anyway. He formed his own company, Energy Management, LLC, in February of 2012, and waited. Waited for what? Well, the 180-day waiting period CalPERS requires to expire before he could go right back to work for Ms. Kerr at RPU as a consultant making $200/hr! (That’s the equivalent of $416,000/year for those doing the math at home).

nolffcontract     signature

VIEW AND READ FULL GARY NOLFF CONTRACT (CLICK THIS LINK)

And so, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Nolff was back on the scene at 3435 14th St. (aka, the Gateway Building), “double-dipping” underneath Ms. Kerr this time. The rapture! His contract was signed by Mr. Wright (Ms. Kerr’s boss), his invoices were sent to and approved by Utilities Projects/Contracts Manager Bob Tang (Ms. Kerr’s henchman, toadie, direct report), and his bills paid under Ms. Kerr’s division’s budget via Purchase Order.  Why is that all this technical mumbo-jumbo (we need Columbo!) important?  Well, you’ll just have to read further and find out!

Mr. Nolff was even given an office courtesy of Ms. Kerr from which to perform his duties: to perform the role of caretaker during the decommissioning (shutdown) phase of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. You see, the darn steam generators there, which were only a few years old at the time, just didn’t seem to want to work correctly, and that’s a bit of a problem when you’re dealing with radioactive material we’re told. Of course, Mr. Nolff was an expert in that particular arena: he had been instrumental in getting Riverside to sign onto buying the malfunctioning units in the first place while we employed him full-time. Now that’s what we at TMC call job security! By some estimates the total cost of that failed San Onofre deal to the ratepayers was about $90 million. Thank you Gary Nolff!

THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP: In May of 2013, a public records request was made concerning Mr. Nolff’s new tryst (we had to check our dictionary for what that means) with the City. In tried and true fashion, the City Attorney’s Office summarily denied releasing any of these records (even redacted) under consigliere-client privilege: Tom Hagen would’ve been proud.  It was as if no one wanted the public to know he was even back working for the City.  I know, imagine that!

Eight months later, the following redacted public records of expenses incurred by Gary Nolff’s consulting firm, Energy Management LLC, mysteriously appeared in our inbox from the City Clerk. We place these here as an example of what roadblocks citizens must confront at times in the name of transparency.  We just recently got the unredacted versions (smooches for you, Lee McDougal), which will follow shortly that demonstrate the real meat of this transparency issue … stay tuned.

nolfexpCLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL NOLFF EXPENSES

We took this salacious story to our appointed and elected officials and advised them that if employees are having affairs on the public’s time and dime, it needs to be made public.  You can cheat on your spouse…just don’t screw us please, even if you have protection.

THE MYSTERY OF GARY NOLFF: At the January 23, 2015, Board of Public Utilities meeting Ms. Reiko Kerr, Assistant General Manager of the Resources Division of Riverside Public Utilities stood her ground when given the chance to publicly address her accusers. “I did not hire Gary Nolff!” (or something to that effect; we didn’t take notes) Undeterred, the public asked more questions again at Utility Services Committee hearing three weeks later. “I did not hire Gary Nolff!” Ms. Kerr would (st)utter again.

Well, “Who did?” of course came the follow-up question.  And the answer to that will be forthcoming dear readers!  “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.” – quote not attributable to Charles Dickens.

 1141fa5     reiko-kerrGary Nolf (on top) Reiko Kerr (on the bottom)

What happens when your former boss is rumored to be having an affair with you and then “retires”; then you magically get his job?  Now that you are the boss, you return the favor and hire him back on a contract for $200/hr.  Higher than the new interim City Manager at $135/hr, or the attempt to bring back the former Fire Chief Earley at $100/hr to help the new regime? We get what we call abuse of taxpayer monies and further..misappropriation of funds.  Let’s call it what it is: favoritism, under the guise of a legitimate business arrangment.

Favoritism can cause undo stress within the workplace.  We did a story back in May 2011 regarding Sexual Favoritism in the Workplace.  In this posting we cited Miller vs. California Department of Corrections, whereby in office romances can cause favoritism in such a way that it can be considered harassment to the other employees. Employees in California may now sue their employers for sexual harassment if the sexual affair between a superior and a subordinate results in sexual favoritism. It is a Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Which means that if sexual favoritism exist, it can impede or interfere with another employees ability to advance within the workplace, therefore this can be cause for a lawsuit and costly liability.  The following link is a synopsis of Miller vs. California Department of Corrections.

TO BE CONTINUED…

UPDATE: 03.02.2015: PE ARTICLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF THE SAN ONOFRE SHUTDOWN: INCREASE IN UTILITY RATES?  One thing we’re learned here at TMC through our keen observation, the real story is the one not told…and so we’ll provide our own investigative reporting (or whatever the heck it is we do) on these events.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “DEMENTED,” “MENTALLY WHACKED,” “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

we-listen

A bit of concern came forward the other day with emails from the community who were for the most part, taken back, after viewing the City Council meeting on the internet.  City-supported presenters that came forward to address the Council were filmed in a way one would normally expect, as seen below from Council Chambers on January 29, 2015.

cc   cc7   cc2   cc3

But when it came to public commentary, a funny thing happened: the camera angle was switched to view the public (many of whom are critics) from the rear of the Council Chamber.  This action sends a personal message to the community: you don’t matter.  Your voice and personification is so far away that what you have to say is not important nor worth being heard.

cc1   cc4   cc5   cc6

Not only was it so far away, but now viewers at home could only seeing the backside of the public.  Questions arose if this was a tactic by City leaders to diss or demean the public.  Just when it appears that the City is connecting better with the public, you get this.  We found that this was interim City Manager Lee McDougal’s call, and will remain so until further notice.  According to the PE, Alicia Robinson reported the following on City Manager McDougal.  “It was my order, yes,” McDougal said. “The meetings are City Council meetings … . I believe (council members) should be on camera because they should be the center of attention at the meeting and not necessarily the speakers.”  So was this all Mr. McDougal, or could he of had a little push from our Mayor?  Regardless, we’ll take from this fiasco a positive: a reminder to follow through with our New Year’s resolutions to renew our gym memberships, so our backsides are more pleasing to the audience at home.

Lets review how the past rules of decorum have been enforced at City Council meetings to see if we can establish a pattern…First, by order of former City Attorney Greg Priamos, the City arrests public speaker Karen Wright for going over the three minute rule by a few seconds, but later Mayor Bailey allows former Mayor Loveridge to go well past the three minute rule to talk about his brother.  Second, Mayor Bailey has former BB&K Attorney Letitia Pepper arrested for clapping.  Now Mayor Bailey is the brunt of her First Amendment law suit, and clapping is allowed in Council Chambers, even for those supporting critics of their government.

sterling    moreno

Now there’s an attempt to continue to intimidate, disrespect and insult the taxpayers by filming them from behind, and I must say WAAAAY behind.  But not in the City of Moreno Valley: they film you right up in your face and in HD, and live during Council, not the grainy, blurry filming Riverside uses.  So again, I ask CM McDougal if he would like to change his statement?  Just when you think that the new improved City Hall is really listening, are they really walking the walk?

STATE OF THE CITY: A PUBLIC AFFAIR OR JUST ANOTHER MONEY MAKING BOONDOGGLE FOR THE CHAMBER?  We asked the question, why should the taxpayer have to divvy out monies to subsidize non-profits?  Most non-profits raise the money for events through private sector contributions.  Therefore, we have seen this time and time again, and we wonder why are streets aren’t fixed, why are trees are not cut and why we still don’t have a City Library.

HOW YOUR UTILITY BILL SUPPORTS THE CHAMBER: FOLLOW THE MONEY.  The Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce (GRCC) is recognized as an Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(6) organization.  Unlike a 501 (c)(3) organization, whose primary purpose is to serve a religious, charitable, scientific or educational purpose, the Chamber serves the best interest of its membership.  It’s membership consist of a select group of businesses.  Most of these businesses are customers of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU).  The current General Manager of RPU, Girish Balachandran, under Section 1202 of the City Charter, has the authorization to negotiate and execute contracts with individual retail customers for water and electric utility service.  He also has the power to offer many intangible benefits to customers.  Mr. Balachandran serves on the Board of Directors of the Chamber.

Balachandran’s predecessor, former General Manager Dave Wright, back in the salad days of giving away ratepayer money, also chose to serve on the Board of Directors of the GRCC.  As a board member, both had a duty of loyalty to the Chamber as defined under California Corporations Code Section 7231 (a): in essence, they must put their interest before that of the any other entity.  It is not infrequent that GRCC lobbies the City Council on issues affecting RPU, and endorses City Council candidates whom have jurisdiction over RPU.  This answers many questions regarding Measure A and the Soubirous Hearings.  The Chamber, we believe, was in part responsible for the Soubirous crucifixion regarding his position on Measure A.  His position would not favor GRCC’s true agenda.

The City’s Conflict of Interest Policy states that an employee may not have a personal interest which would tend to impair independence, judgement or action necessary to pursue the City’s best interest.  This tenet is codified as law under Government Code Section 1126 (b) of the the State of California.  Conflict of interest laws attempt to discourage not only biased-decision making not serving the public interest, but also the perception of such bias.

To wit, Resolution No. 22676 of the Riverside City Council, states, “the City Manager, City Attorney, and the City Clerk shall not serve as a member of the board of directors of a non-profit corporation which is receiving or will be reasonably likely in the future to seek and/or receive funding from the City of Riverside so as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest,” thereby establishing intent of the policy.  Obviously our utility managers seem to believe the rules that apply to their boss, need not apply to them…

wright

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

It has been well-known for some time that the Chamber receives taxpayer funding from the City of Riverside. What has been much less known is the amount of funding the Chamber receives directly from ratepayers, under the signature authority (i.e. no public vetting before the Board of Public Utilities or City Council) of both Mr. Balachandran and his direct subordinate, Michael Bacich, the Assistant General Manager of Customer Relations and Marketing.  These funds have been paid via the request-for-payment process that has until recently been kept hidden from the public disclosure.  Below, you will find a list of the roughly 200 payments RPU has made to the Chamber over the past 4 years in individual amounts up to $24,000.00, as well as proof of his predecessor’s participation on its Board (above figure).

n22i3k-wwright0712binary1098362

The Kingpin David Wright

THE PAYMENTS TO THE CHAMBER QUEEN

img064  img065  img066  img067  img068   img069

So folks, could this be how the City of Riverside launders taxpayers money through a non-profit (Riverside Chamber of Commerce), then the Chamber writes a check to support campaign politicians who will feed their gravy train?   Sort of how the “Clinton Foundation” works…  What you have is that “public servants” are on these non-profit boards, but should be looking out for the best interest of the “taxpayer,” but are not, they are looking out for themselves, because, seemingly, they believe no one (the dumbass taxpayer) is looking at them.

CLICK THE ABOVE PAYMENTS IMAGES TO THE CHAMBER TO ENLARGE

Girish-Balachandran

So, is Girish Balachandran following in the footsteps of David Wright, and proving once again that in the River City there’s simply no bridge too far when it comes to conflict-of-interests as is the case with his board membership with the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce?

RCCGirish

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

TMC RECEIVES LEAKS FROM RIVERSIDE CITY HALL REGARDING BRENDA DIETRICH’S HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT.  You can read the full leaked concerns of City of Riverside employees from the employee handbook to specific allegations against Human Resource Director Brenda Diederich, by clicking on the links below.

bd

HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR BRENDA DIEDERICH

These address Riverside City employee concern regarding an antiquated employee handbook, Human Resource Director Brenda Diederich hiring a personal friend and the targeted termination of gay employees without cause.

 leak                   emphbook

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS OF HIRED PERSONAL FRIEND & GAY TERMINATIONS   EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK CONCERNS

 TOTAL COST TO THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE STATE OF THE CITY EVENT BY QUEEN BEE’S CINDY ROTH’S GRCC (GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE).

theamounts

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO VIEW FULL EMAIL

The bottom line was that the taxpayer paid out $11,218.50 (minimum, given Mr. Mason’s list doesn’t include a $1000 tables for both the Parks and Recreation Department and the Office of Economic (not Community) Development) for Cindy Roth’s Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce event, but we again, as the general public, had a seat in the back of the bus event.  Next time you pay your utility bill, spot a pothole, or your support is sought for better salaries and benefits by the Police or Fire unions, remember how these departments chose to donate your money to the Chamber….

HOW MUCH IS, “I OWN IT,” COSTING THE TAXPAYER?
Is it also an indirect advertising plug for that specific “I Own It” customer? … Who “incidentally” is the law firm of BB&K.   Since we own it too, can TMC also be part of that campaign? We of course have not been asked..but we patiently wait for our turn… Why?  Because, “I Own It.”  Our take is that it may not be long before RPU begins to recant with, “I Regret It.”

jcTMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “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

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In reference to the current audit, what the PE failed to report was that the scope of the audit was to not only include a forensic audit of the sewer, but the electric and water.  In addition, community advocates emphasized that the scope of the audit must address inter-agency transactions, not inter-fund transactions (of which we knew the majority of those were fine).  Inter-agency loans are those made between to agencies such as the City of Riverside Sewer Department and the State with reference to Redevelopment.  Inter-fund transaction happen all day long!  From one department to another within that single agency, such as the City.  So our question is, who got to the council?  We don’t know?  Did the best advocate for a resolution of this issue flip-flop?  We say, yes!

Let’s take a look at the above transaction.  Originally, the City Council approved the $5.4 million as a short term 120 day loan from the Sewer Fund to Redevelopment.  What Council voted on was different than what actually occurred behind the scenes under former CFO Paul Sundeen.  Council voted for a short term inter-agency loan (not inter-fund) from the Sewer Fund to Redevelopment which is a State Agency.  What happened was instead of paying from the Sewer Fund, they drew the $5.4 million from the Workers Comp Fund as indicated.  Then what happen next was the Electric Fund paid the Workmans Comp Fund.  Then the Sewer Fund paid the Electric Fund.  Why did all this happen?  We call it money laundering.  When the issue was brought forward, the City called it an “oversight,”  we called it the “Sundeen Shuffle” (in reference to former CFO Paul Sundeen).  The lingering question is how many instances of oversight does it take, to consider the actions fraudulent?

Barber and Sundeen have no concerns about how the City will make payments on debt because : a) they are part of the team that created the enormous mountain of debt, and b) the payments on the debt are the responsibility of City taxpayers/ratepayers. Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.  -whosincharg, Commenter on the PE

CCI08112014_00015millutilityplazapurchase

CLICK THIS IMAGE TO ENLARGE

How bout this one!  Another oversight, as the City is labeling them.  The original transaction was to be a $5 million dollar loan from the City Sewer Fund to the State Agency of Redevelopment.  What actually happened was the $5 million was drawn from the Electric Fund as an inter-agency loan to RDA, instead of the Sewer Fund.  What happened next was that the Workers Compensation Fund payed the Electric Fund.  Then the Sewer Fund payed backed the Workers Compensation Fund.  Again why was this done?  We call this the “Sundeen Shuffle.”  No it’s not a dance, as we know it, but a dance in perception.  Why did the funds take this turn of event again?  Was it nothing more than an attempt to “launder” taxpayer monies?

We noticed in 2011 that City of Riverside was commingling Redevelopment monies with our General Fund, and actually believed the city did this because to give the appearance of a healthy General Fund.  This would be important for those such as investors, who would be looking at the financial healthy of our general fund. We asked the question if the City of Riverside was doing what the City of Miami was?  In this Press Release by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it states that the City of Miami was transferring monies to their General Fund in order to mask increasing deficits in the General Fund.  The City of Miami was actively marketing bonds to the investment public while their primary operating fund was boosted to give the appearance of strength.  According to the SEC Press Release, Miami did not disclose to bondholders that the transferred funds included legally restricted dollars which, under city code, may not be commingled with any other funds or revenues of the city.

june2011wrda  june2011woutrda   MFNOV2011    generalfundSept2011

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE

As you can see in the first thumbnail listed as June 2011, we have a commingling of State Funds with the General Fund.  When we brought this to the attention the following month we saw a visual decrease by approximately 77% in the General Fund, this is thumbnail July 2011.  By November 2011, thumbnail three, we noticed the General Fund contains just about $2,000.00.  How would this look to an investor?  In September 2012, thumbnail four, we find our General Fund was negative $73,412.00, again does not look appealing to investors.  We have to remember, that it takes approximately 13 to 16 million a month to run the City of Riverside.

This is an example, of what former CFO Paul Sundeen did in order to give the impression that the General Fund was healthy.  A no no in accounting practices, since those assets are from a State Agency, Redevelopment.

THE CITY OF PASADENA’S $6.4 MILLION EMBEZZLEMENT WOES POINTS TO ONE CITY EMPLOYEE, WHILE THE COMMUNITY POINTS THE BLAME AT CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK FOR HIS LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND ASK FOR HIS FIRING!  Former Assistant Riverside City Manager Michael Beck, now City Manager of the City of Pasadena, is on the hot seat for a lack of oversight which the community resulted in the embezzlement of $6.4 million which lead to the arrest of three people, including a city employee, and the suspension of four other city hall employees.

AR-150109730.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Michael Beck

Danny Ray Wooten was a management analyst with the City of Pasadena’s Public Works Department who is now accused of embezzlement, and is being charged in a 60 part felony complaint, according to the DA’s office.

AR-150109768.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Pastor Wooten

The clincher here is that Mr. Wooten is also known as Pastor Wooten of the New Covenant Church in Pomona.  Even that church is scrambling to check and audit their finances to see if they have been scammed by pastor Wooten in any way.  But don’t sit down yet folks, it gets better, what the press has yet to mention is that former Public Works Director for the City of Riverside was Siobhan Foster… she is currently now the Public Works Director for the City of Pasadena, under the direction, of course, of Michael Beck.  So what was Ms. Foster’s excuse for her inability to catch this criminal act?  Possibly because she is not qualified?  While Director of Public Works in Riverside, employees mentioned that she would asked the question of what a “pot hole” was..  Foster also had her bout with fuzzy math and the bid process which were the brunt of employee complaints.

siobhan-fostertw

Siobhan Foster

Both Michael Beck and Siobhan Foster when they both worked for the City of Riverside, were under the direction of disgraced City Manager Brad Hudson, who’s decisions that were made will cause our City to confront treacherous financial waters as the years pass.  But what many in the community are asking, is why did she resign in order to go to the City of Pasadena?

Incidentally, former interim City Attorney Christina Talley was the former City Attorney for the City of Pasadena during the years of 1994-1996, cities do recycle their employees!  She came here to Riverside, while we sent former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster and former Assistant City Manager Michael Beck to Pasadena.  Kiss that $6.4 million good bye Pasadena, it will cost another $6.4 million in legal fees to attempt to recover it!  Beck and Foster need to go down for this one.

UPDATE: JANUARY 9, 2015: PAUL ZELLERBACH PLEADS “NO CONTEST” IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT:  Of which many in the community are just considering a favor by Riverside County Superior Judge Beck Dugan, according to the Press Enterprise, Zellerbach pleaded no contest to following:

· Vandalism Under $400 (594(2)(a) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing to Place Unauthorized Signs (602(f) California Penal Code)
· Trespassing with Intent to Cause Damage (602(k) California Penal Code)
· Embezzlement (504 California Penal Code)
· Theft of Public Funds (424(a)(1) California Penal Code)
In lieu of the seriousness of the charges, Judgy Duggy didn’t throw the book at Zelly Baby but gave him a cushy ruling!  1.) pay various fines totaling $1,070.00, 2.) Take part in 60 hours of community service and 3.) One year of probation, (and this is cushy probation, not the hardball probation everyone else must take).  There you are folks…
And of course, as is good practice with the PE, besides blocking commenters, is to bring the story out, and quickly bury it into the anal of internet ink..  Corruption runs deep from this trash we call Paul Zellerbach, to the Judges, Grand Jury, County Sups, Sheriff’s Unions etc. etc.
SHOULD SKIN COLOR BECOME AN ISSUE IN RIVERSIDE?  LEE MCDOUGAL, FORMER RETIRED CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR HIRED TO BE INTERIM RIVERSIDE CITY MANAGER.  It is unfortunate that we must make race an issue regarding these announcement, as if this has any bearing on ones job position.  According to the PE City Spokeshole Phil Pitcford said that McDougal would be the first African American to lead Riverside.  Shouldn’t ethnicity not matter, and shouldn’t we be choosing people by their experience, qualification and the content of their character, and not bring skin color into the mix?  We did this again when our first black Fire Chief for the City was hired, Michael D. Moore, the PE notated his skin color.  Are we attempting to describe as a City, something about our future and something about our past?  Have we arrived as municipality that has no restrictions?  Shouldn’t skin color never be an issue to began with?  I think so.  Now that I placed skin color to the way side, why do we have so many public servant retirees coming back for a second round of benefits?  That is the question which needs to be answered.  Both McDougal and Moore are retirees, who continue to work.  Is the age for public retirement just to low?  Of course it is, who are we fooling?  Why is the public sector now the best gig in town?  Because you as voters and residents allowed this to happen.  You must be part of a Democracy or Republic in order for this exercise to occur.  It is not free, you must be part of it in order for true Democracy to exist.  This dysfunction seems relevant to the public sector.  This seems to be a phenomenon relative to the public sector as opposed to the private sector, and gives individuals a second opportunity to feed at the taxpayer trough?  That is of course, being able to retire at 55 years of age, and get a second attempt to repeat the process within a lifetime is just a misappropriation of taxpayer funds.
It is again unfortunate that we need to look at the outside for individuals to guide our City forward.  We all know for example, that Interim Chief Mike Esparza should have been the Fire Chief.  But did they all leave in order to solidify their pensions before the flow of money becomes less within the City in the coming years?
OUTSIDE LEGAL HELP PROBLEMATIC? DID WE HAVE A ROGUE FORMER CITY ATTORNEY WHO BY PASSED THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE OUTSIDE LEGAL HELP WITHOUT COUNCIL AUTHORITY?  ABSOLUTELY YES!  With the new article in the PE regarding the hiring of outside legal help, which has been a common practice in the City of Riverside to do it without any sort of binding agreement or contract.  Not only was the contract issue a concern for many in the community, because no one knew what was really being spent by former City Attorney Greg Priamos’s office.  In many cases we felt that he used the taxpayers monies for his own legal agenda and agenda’s of the very few which in the long run, did not benefit the taxpayer, only cost them more.  One good example of Gregory’s contempt, was violating the will of the voters by blocking a ballot measure to be voted on, and of course, at taxpayer expense, as in the following PE article.One good example of Gregory’s contempt, was violating the will of the voters by blocking a ballot measure to be voted on, and of course, at taxpayer expense, as in the following PE article.
sexsalon23_priamos_3002
Former City Attorney Gregory Priamos
According to the PE in a December 9th article, stated that in a December 3rd decision, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Brian S. McCarville ruled against the city, writing that the state’s initiative process “is a right that should be jealously guarded,” and that “the better reasoned approach is to allow this type of challenge to be resolved after the voters have spoken to the issue.”  Therefore, the City of Riverside violated the voters right to place an initiative on the ballot, as is acceptable under the Democratic process.  Again people ask if the City of Riverside is a Dictatorship?  But what becomes more evident is that taxpayer monies were spent to block the Democratic process.  Further, more taxpayer monies will more than likely be spent to appeal the decision.  But that’s Riverside..  and of course, Priamos never protected the sanctity of taxpayer monies..he used the budget as if it was his own money, and of course never benefiting the best interest of the taxpayer.
talleybw
How would Christin Talley respond to this?  I would imagine “No Comment.”  Of course, Talley has had her own set of problems with competency with other cities whom hired her through Best, Best & Krieger Law Firms.

In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach.  What a surprise, it’s signed by former City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K.  Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”.  Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off…  Wish we could, but it gets better.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHOLE DOCUMENT

This was an article we posted back in May of 2012 when we requested all contracts for outside legal help by the City Attorney’s office.  There were no documents responsive!  This was recently brought to the forefront with a new article by Dan Bernstein from the Press Enterprise, “Riverside: The (Hidden) Cost of Business.”   Bernstein refers to all the non contractual outside legal services which are not documented, a hidden cost as he calls it, but not hidden to taxpayer monies.  One of the most striking documents we at TMC found a couple of years ago was one which Best, Best & Krieger had their own charge card, to charge the City of Riverside as they needed to for legal work rendered.  Charges to the tune in excess of six figures?

CorpCard    CCTWO    CCTHREE    CCFOUR    CCFIVE

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENTS OF CORPORATE CARD

 The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval.  The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts.  The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.

4-14-09 PRR 1 of 2 001                      4-14-09 PRR 2 of 2 001                     4-27-09 City response 001

CLICK ON ABOVE DOCUMENT IMAGES TO ENLARGE

sec702

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE REFERENCING SECTION 702

The question then arose was because of Section 702 Eligilbility, powers and duties of the City Attorney, from the City of Riverside City Charter.   This section of the charter stated, “The City Council shall have control over all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney therein.”  We were also told that state bar requires a lawyer to provide a contract for any work done for a client.  We ascertain that Section 702 makes all outside legal services require approval by the majority of the City Council.

With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber.  The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous.  The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval.  We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.

Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.”  We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent.  The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.

 Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.”  We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?”  If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals.  When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?”  How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies?  What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter?  A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.

We say this because of the circumstances.  We bring the incident which involved our current City Manager Scott Barber. Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza.  He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact.  Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager?  The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council.  Certainly violated the Charter Amendment.  What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them?  A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.

Or the time, which involved City Attorney Greg Priamos denying that he had anything to do with the command for the arrest of public speaker, Karen Wright.  Officer Sahagun was commanded by the City Attorney to arrest public speaker Karen Wright.  Then Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, this then implies that officer Sahagun is s liar.  Brian Smith, RPOA President states, “we call that a lie in the profession, and the State of California calls it lying in a police report a crime.”  So if it is in fact a lie, will Priamos prosecute Officer Sahagun for falsifying a police report?  To this day it remains unclear what Priamos meant by referring to the report as “inaccurate.”  In addition, has yet to give an explanation of what was actually said between himself and Officer Sahagun.  Again is City Attorney Greg Priamos a liar?

The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity?  What should be done about it?  Why isn’t anything being done about it now?”  It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.”  So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge? When will Council take the reigns of power they were given to them by the taxpayer and defend them?

MAY 2012 ORIGINAL TMC ARTICLE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING CONTRACTS!”

may2014twoIt has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside.  What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.  According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated.   When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent.  According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record.  Therefore, non is required.  Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on?  This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading.  And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies.  You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture.  Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DENIAL LETTER

Above is a letter sent to Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos.  The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”?  What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer.  We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act.  As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract?  I would say not.  When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”?  Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer?  If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.”  One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside?   What is it between the two?  As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card?  It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more.  So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers?  It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost.  So who’s minding the store?  Inquiring taxpayers would like to know.  But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register.  Why? Quite possibly as a direct result of their incestuous relationship between this law firm and the city that has grown over the years.

Such a cozy arrangement between certain ex-city of riverside employees as well as BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees.  Conflict of interest?   The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, or on their boards and committees are numerous.  Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership), now of course, our interim City Attorney Christina Talley.  BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.  Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California.

Measure A… The City of Riverside used taxpayer monies to bankroll their campaign against citizen advocate groups!  The scam that continues to continues to give, masterminded by former City Attorney Gregory Priamos!

OUR NEW INTERIM LAWTINA CITY ATTORNEY CHRISTINA TALLEY NOW SUING HER FORMER EMPLOYER THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.  According to OC Weekly Talley states that she is victim of council majority’s war on Latinos.  In this suit she is using the race card by claiming discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment.  The majority of the lawsuit is aimed at Council member Kris Murray, who incidentally, is a white female, which Talley says was “extremely rude, condescending and sarcastic” in personal dealings.  Talley has a hearing set for January 5th, 2015, but in a prior hearing in November 2014, District Judge David O. Carter ordered both parties to try to resolve the dispute through mediation.

Christina-Talley_9150

One blog site defends Talley regarding her advice to Council members, and states that her advice on the issue of the Gardenwalk project was sound.  But one commenter on the Orange Juice Blog made this comment.

Michelle Rodriguez

IS GENERAL MANAGER GIRISH BALACHANDRAN OF THE RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES IN CONFLICT BY BEING A BOARD MEMBER OF THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE?  What has been brought to the attention to TMC is that the newly christened General Manager of our Riverside Public Utilities is also a board member with the Greater Riverside Chamber Commerce.  We find this a conflict of interest in that it directly impacts the public he represents without our input.  Checks written to the Chamber by Public Utilities for what ever supportive reason is not in the best interest of the public and the rate payers, especially if they are approved under the General Manager Mr. Balachandran.

Girish-Balachandran        RCCGirish

WHAT STAYS IN VEGAS DIDN’T STAY VERY LONG?  FORMER RIVERSIDE GENERAL MANAGER DAVE WRIGHT TAKES JOB WITH LOS ANGELES DWP.  Wright retired from the City of Riverside Public Utilities as the political heat got to him their General Manager in July 2013 to take a job in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Who retires to take another job?  If you say you are going to retire don’t you just retire?  Who retires at 53years of age? The common phenomenon with public workers is that you are set to retire early to take a pension, then you can go on to double and even triple dip into public taxpayer monies even more.  Then you are set to buy that mansion in Bel Air.  Now, Mr. Wright will begin work with the LADWP this coming February, 2015 as their Senior Assistant General Manager.  Good Luck Dave! you’ll probably fit in with all the scandal with LADWP, god knows what you did in Riverside.  The scandal of course involved inaccurate customer rates and $40 million in revenues that were mysteriously spent by then General Manager Ron Nicols and the head of DWP’s biggest union.  Brian D’Arcy, union head continued to skew the issue of how public monies were spent in the form of non-profit trust.

n22i3k-wwright0712binary1098362dw2014LV

IS IT A TAX OR FEE? THE QUESTION DEFINED BY THE WASHINGTON POLICY CENTER.  The question arises many times the definition of a tax and the term “fee”, and is a fee a tool utilized by Cities to create revenue.  But are they doing this illegally or getting around the law by calling a tax a fee?

NEXT UP: ONE OF RPD’S AND RPOA’S  FINEST…AND WE HAVE TO THANK SERGIO FOR THIS ONE!

chris-lanzillo

 TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “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

Untitled-1

I been thinking about this investigation quite a bit, and continue with the thought of just what were they thinking?  Was this a conspired smear campaign, a power play to remove a colleague who may have become a political advisery?  Their plan, it appeared, simply begain to unraveled at the seams unveiling a vile, putrid decay of the very fabric of our democratic system.  Mayor Bailey and Councilman Adams relayed to Soubirous on April 1, 2014, that four City of Riverside employees filed under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act with complaints against him that he violated Riverside City Charter Chapter 407, thereby creating a Hostile Work Environment, what was said to him never occurred.  At the July 22nd Councilman Soubirous hearing, Councilman Paul Davis admitted Brown Act violations in which are council were involved.

In the Hostile Work Environment Guide, whats important to note is that the conduct or behavior must be pervasive and constitute a pattern rather than consist of one or two isolated incidents.  This pattern must include discrimination in the work place based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, sex or color.  I didn’t see incompetence listed here. Whats also interesting is that this specialized high priced Law firm of  Gumport Mastan, either didn’t know what the legal definition of “Hostile Work Environment” was, or they knew and were going to take advantage of City Manager Scott Barber, Chief Sergio Diaz, Mayor Rusty Bailey and Councilmember Steve Adams and RIP-OFF the City of Riverside for approx $100,000.00.   How embarrasing that Barber,Diaz, Bailey and Adams thought this investigation would be in the best interest of the public.  Who was advising these people!  Oh yea I forgot Greg Priamos. Did Greg know the legal definition of Hostile Work Environment?  Well I guess it was a good thing that Priamos left for new job with the County, he is that much closer to the County Jail.  In retrospect, are they all really that DUMB, INCOMPETENT, and/or CORRUPT?

According to Seattle Business Magazine, misapplying “hostile” increases unfounded legal claims and tension and strained relationships between employers and employees and/or between coworkers, while misunderstanding “hostile” causes management to mishandle such allegations.

Section 407. Interference in administrative service.  Neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his/her powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or their removal therefrom. Except for purpose of inquiry, the Mayor, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the Mayor nor the City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or  privately. (Effective 12/27/1995).

Since they are “Whistleblower’s”, I would have imagined Federal Complaints would be in order.  No such Federal filing according to records ever occurred.  The four employees would have been RPOA President Brian Smith, RPOA Vice President Aurelio Melendrez, Chief of Police Sergio Diaz and City Manager Scott Barber.  It would appear that the conspirators whittled the four filers to two since the true investigation only reveals two employees; Barber and Diaz, with Smith and Melendrez as “witnesses.”  Barber made an indirect claim of a hostile work environment based on the witness testimony of third party information which, came directly from his meeting with Union President Brian Smith.  He then crafted his letter and sent it to Mayor Bailey and Councilman Adams, of course, CC’d (Carbon Copy) City Attorney Gregory Priamos (AKA: The Architect).  Remarkably, his letter stated that what was said between Smith and Soubirous created a hostile work environment for himself, he even admits what he has written is derived “third hand”, or AKA third party information.  I guess you can always count on third party information to make a tight case.

 ComplaintBarber1     ComplaintBarber22

BARBER’S COMPLAINT (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

Not once, did our City Manager Scott Barber find it necessary to contact Councilman Soubirous to corroborate RPOA President (and RPD Sergeant-hoping to be Lieutenant) Brian Smith’s side of the story.  This I find quite extraordinary!  Isn’t Barber a conflict manager specialist?  Or was this class just not offered in a Thespian Major?  They didn’t even file their complaint according to the rules they evidently uphold (Charter Chapter 202-Code of Ethics and Conduct).

section202 warrow

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT SECTION 202

Did they perceive themselves as entitled, for the rules of law?  Did they think the rules of law didn’t apply to them?  They certainly apply to everyone else!  Section 202 describes that a complaint form should be used and filed with the City Clerk!  That certainly didn’t happen.

In a secondary act of incredible noteworthy importance, the Chief of Police in his letter did the exact same thing as City Manager Scott Barber.  He based his complaint on RPOA Union President and RPD Sergeant’s Brian Smith’s personal account of his meeting with Councilman Mike Soubirous, that fateful Valentine’s Day of 2014.

ComplaintDiaz1          ComplaintDiaz2

DIAZ’S COMPLAINT (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

Again, an indirect claim of a hostile work environment was made, this time by the Chief.  We have to ask the question if Soubirous was being set up as part of orchestrated smear campaign?  We know there was growing tension between Soubirous and his relationship with City Manager Scott Barber and the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz.  Diaz in fact, threatened Soubirous political career.  Diaz stating in an email that it is “politically unwise to declare war on your cops.”   This is a guy who Soubirous loaned his truck out to on several occasions!  Also  Council Candidate John Brandriff, had filed a complaint against the chief  in  which his complaint was “founded”Diaz had told Brandriff at a West Side Story showing at the Fox Theater said the following:  “If you have anymore political aspirations don’t make an enemy out of me”.  This is a Chief who makes more than a half a million a year, $247 from his LAPD pension and $307 from his current salary as RPD Chief. Thinking he can manipulate the political fabric of our city.

INVEST267

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW THE REST OF THE LEFT OVER INTERVIEWS ELIMINATED FROM THE FIRST INVESTIGATIONAL RELEASE, THEY JUST DIDN’T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE LAW FIRM OF GUMPORT MASTAN’S $100K STORY

RPOA President Brian Smith emailed me to tell me how I may have spun the actual fact, that I need to investigate before making a statement on the blog. So when RPOA Brian Smith sent TMC this email:

emailbriansmith

We asked RPOA President Brian Smith to clear up some questions simply because of his tag line, that he felt our post was a “interesting spin.” (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE).

tmcresponsetwo

With that we asked our email to respond to the original Cop Play Book. (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE).  I did attempt to clarify through Seargent Smith himself but he never emailed me back.  So I did take his advice and did a little investigation of my own.  What I also found quite peculiar was RPD Sergeant and RPOA President Brian Smith’s interrelationships and affiliations with reference to CorporateWiki.Com   The connection between Cliff Mason and Chris (Christopher) Lanzillo.

wikicorplanzillio

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Now, former RPOA President Sgt. Cliff Mason was implicated in illegal sale of revolvers to former City Manager Brad Hudson and Assistant City Manager Thomas DeSantis while a RPD officer with the City of Riverside.  At the time Lanzillo was president, Brian Smith was Vice President, and Aurelio Melendrez (Councilman Andy Melendrez’s son) was Secretary.  According to Chief Sergio Diaz, Lanzillo was fired for doing some “pretty bad things.”   Those bad things were never elaborated upon.  We are still attempting to find what these really “bad things” are.  But he did come back to sue the taxpayers with the law firm he later worked for, Lackie, Dammeier & McGill.  His job was reinstated with RPD and shortly thereafter retired on a medical disability.  Shortly thereafter, started his own investigation company in Orange County and did some investigatory work for this law firm.  We asked the question is Lanzillo committed insurance fraud as a result of his miracle recovery?  The law firm was later the brunt of a DA investigation, which ultimately led to their dissolution.

When Chris Lanzillo was President of the RPOA, Brian Smith was Vice President and Aurelio Melendrez was Secretary, was the cop play book in effect back then?  The Police Union have in the past employed a law firm, Lackie,Dammeier & McGill, and a member of that law firm- former RPD Officer and RPOA Union President Chris Lanzillo who, according to numerous reports chronicled in the Orange County Register, tailed Cost Mesa Councilman Jim Righeimer falsely claiming he was drunk.  He had a receipt for consuming his diet cokes at a meeting at a local bar in his possession.  We now must look at the person behind the incident, former RPOA President and former RPD Detective Chris Lanzillo, and if he still is in contact with current RPOA President Brian Smith?

Former RPOA President & former RPD Detective Chris Lanzillo

The Cop Play Book was a list of strategic tactics designed and crafted by the law firm of  Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir, for cops and their unions in order to get what they want on the negotiating table.  The full play book is listed below with some excerpts.  The Playbook was quickly removed from the law firms web site when the cow pies began fly; not to mention Chris Lanzillo’s name was also removed from their web site as a working associate when the press exposed their underbelly.

            copplaybook1    copplaybook2   copplaybook3    copplaybook4

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL COP PLAY BOOK

Accordingly, with reference to the first page above, “associations leaders know, association leaders should be selective in their battles.” We also know that Aurelio Melendrez, Vice President of the Riverside Police Officer’s Association has referred to their RPOA as an “Organization.”

Always keep this in mind.  The public could care less about your pay, medical coverage and pension plan (really?), All they want to know is “what is in it for them?”  Again, how arrogant, deceiving and elitist of a statement this is, of course the taxpayer cares of the cost, they are paying for it!  Isn’t this the reason for the majority of municipal bankruptcy’s? Unsustainable pensions?

The Association should be like a quiet giant in the position of, “do as I ask and don’t piss me off.”  Again I ask RPOA President Brian Smith, is this a formula to create better politics, or “piss poor politics?”

“You should be in very close contact with your associations attorney, during these times to ensure you are not going to get yourself or any of your members in trouble.”   I would say they are referring to the law firm of Lackie, Dammeier, McGill & Ethir.  The demise of this law firm and their criminal activity can be read in the article by OC Watchdog, “Bare-knuckle police defense gets knocked out.”    Further, part of the law firms criminal activity was that they used GPS, in the form of attaching electronic devices illegally in order to track city officials!

No City Council or Governing Board should take place where members of your association and the public aren’t present publicly chastasing them for their lack of concern for public safety.  Do we not see this in the City of Riverside because they deal and prevent this issue from being public in closed sessions?  Every City Council meeting Riverside has in closed sessions deals with negotiating  with Union Representatives!

Blunders by the City Manager, Mayor, or City Council members of wasteful spending should be highlighted and pointed out to the public at every opportunity.

…as a pressure tactic, tactic seeking petition to file a referendum on eliminating the City Manager’s position for a full time elected Mayor may cause the City Manager to rethink his or hers position.

Focus on a City Manager, Councilperson, Mayor or Chief of Police and keep the pressure up until that person assures you his loyalty and then move on to the next victim.  Sounds familiar?

Of course, other ideas that cops come up with a very imaginative.  Just keep in mind, the idea is to show the decision makers that the public favors public safety and it will only harm their public support by not prioritizing you and almost equally important, to let them know that next time that they should agree with you much sooner.  Sounds familiar?  Sound to me as another strong-arm tactic possibly utilized to attain an objective.  Is this in the best interest of the taxpayer?  Or is the taxpayer being shaked down?

“Are Police Unions crossing the line while bullying public officials?” as in this news story.  How effective was play book for former Upland Law Firm Lackie, Dammeier & McGill as in this news story “How Police Play Hardball At The Bargaining Table”.   Was the play book a soft illegal tool implemented in order to creatively “shake-down” or “strong-arm” political targets, in order to make them a bit more pliable?

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE (RIGHEIMER CALLS THEM “THUGS” & “A CRIMINAL OPERATION.” ON KFI RADIO)

On the KFI 640, radio host John and Ken interview Councilman Jim Righeimer about the incident, the original 911 call by Chris Lanzillo is also played on this show.  It’s worth listening to.  Righeimer is being set up by police officer and Chris Lanzillo.  Lanzillo is driving a white Kia with no license plates while following Righeimer.  Also noted was that he was illegally on the phone while driving, while making a false 911 call.

KFI

CLICK THIS LINK TO HEAR THE 08/27/2012 AUDIO INTERVIEW BETWEEN JOHN & KEN AND COUNCILMAN RIGHEIMER AND AUDIO OF LANZILLO’S 911 CALL REPORTING AN ALLEGED DUI WHILE TAILING RIGHEIMER

Councilman Jim Righeimer claims that the base pay that is indicated for police officers as well as fire fighters within the city is not the actual pay.  For example if their base pay states $65K, it can actually be $135K, because their are actually 75 different ways to pay a public employee, not to mention pension, and may not even include healthcare!  What they are saying is that the actual average pay per officer is actually $135K, but what you see or talked about is the base pay of $65K.  Righeimer states that this was the main reason he was targeted, because he exposed to the taxpayer how much public employees really make.  TMC is investigating this aspect within the City of Riverside.

On September 9, 2012 the Orange County DA subpoenaed video from the Costa Mesa bar, where Lanzillo says Councilman Righeimer was drunk.  According to a KTLA report, Lanzillo stated that Councilman Righeimer stumbled out of the bar and was swirving all over the road in 911 call.  According to the video, it showed that he was not.  The police officer who went to Councilman Righeimer’s home, found he was not drunk, and found he had only drank two diet cokes.  Congressman Dana Rohrabacher became involved, and a Federal investigation ensued.  Currently, Righeimer is suing the Costa Mesa Police Union over the DUI sting fiasco.  In what was called a “very sophisticated conspiracy” by Righeimer’s attorney, Vince Finaldi, the use of GPS tracking devices utilized just takes this whole episode to the next level.  Bad enough, that the FBI is involved.

Councilman Jim Righeimer

 

A very similar incident occurred with Buena Park Councilman Fred Smith in this Orange County Register story.

Jack Wu of the Daily Pilot brought this coveted point, if Lanzillo was getting paid to investigate and watch someone else, then stop and waste precious time following Councilman Righeimer whom he thought was drunk.  Wouldn’t you want your money back and question if there was some sort of attention deficit associated with his medical disability? 

In an article by Lauren Williams of the Daily Pilot, The Los Angeles Police Protective League (LLPPL) issued a statement critical of Upland based law firm Lackie, Dammeier & McGill and criticized the Costa Mesa Police Association (A Police Union).  They said that “Hardball Tactics”, or what I would say “Intimidation Tactics” can erode the publics trust.  Residents in communities trust and the need the police to protect and serve.  When these types of incidents occurr, the citizens see the police as a seperate entity, whereby the residents health and safety become at risk, and they to become intimidated by uncertaintity of who’s benefit the police really serve.   The LLPPL have a long and proven  record of working with city officials to ensure that public safety comes first.  It’s now left to the Fed’s to investigate the activities of this law firm and respond to the public with their conclusions.

Is the power of the badge being used to “bully” and/or being used in “enforcer type tactics” for police unions against elected officials?  Have police unions and law firms taken their activities to a different level that will become a red flag for the Feds?  An article by Steven Frank of California News and Views has this to say about that subject.

What I’m getting from some of these reports is very disturbing.  Have Police Unions become so powerful that they are somehow controlling certain political scenarios?  This would definitely not benefit the taxpayer, but the very few in union membership.  And by doing so, becomes a public health and safety issue.  So now you have a police union, an attorney law firm with a police background, and possibly toss in some outside police officers working together in unison using the grey areas of the law to terrorize and shake down individuals in city government.  Then decisions and contracts are then negotiated under these “circumstances.”  Others in elected positions are also saying that the law firm harasses by threatening grand jury investigations.

Well if anybody knows, you can file a grand jury investigation against just about anything, you are harassed by the fact that you have to deal with it.  Sounds like a good tactic as others say in the business, a “client control” strategy.  Taking it a step further, is this part of the reason why California has unsustainable union contracts, is going bankrupt, and/or the reason why these contracts cannot be fulfilled or honored?  Then the question would be, were some of these contracts not negotiated in the best interest of the taxpayer due to ulterior motives?  Something to think about, this is what movies are made out of..  And this is one scenario I would like to see played out on the wide screen.

lanzillo

Let me see if I’ve got this straight…A Riverside detective named Chris Lanzillo gets fired…then is called back so that he can be retired early on a medical disability…which qualifies him to recieve his pay in large part tax free for the rest of his life.  BUT…he’s not so disabled that he can’t work as a private investigator for a law firm that represents cops and cop unions…and shall we say…suuplement his retirement pay……Is that absurd or what!  He’s a bad cop who’s now a crook…and we got to pay his freight for the rest of his life!  – John Bosch, Commenter on the Orange County Register

Chris Lanzillo made #15 of Orange County Weekly’s Scariest People of 2012!  According to OC Weekly, Lanzillo proved the adage that once an asshole cop, always an asshole cop.

s

But in this pic it appears he (Lanzillo, to the right) is drinking his ass off…

We also ask the question if City Hall elites have a play book, to get what they want?  Reviewing, could this have been a concerted avenue utilized by Adams (Ex-RPD), Bailey, Smith, Aurelio and Diaz to destroy a political opponent?  Could this have been a set-up, as Councilman Righeimer felt, as in his case?

According to a PE article you stated that the investigation on Soubirous was “incomplete” rather than “inconclusive.”, since Soubirous refused to let Gumport interview him.  But it seems that Smith has forgotten that Soubirous was told April 1, 2014 that he would never know the identities of those who complained against him, that there were four and accused him of interfering with employee duties and causing a hostile work environment.  According to the Fourteenth Amendment, was Soubirious being deprived of his right of “due process?”  With this in mind, the case lacks creadance, therefore having documentation of all correspondence would be in order.  Soubirous did just that, he declined to be interviewed, instead provided written answers to questions.  After all we found out later that the interview process contained no audio recording or corresponding notes.  This already appears as a set-up when you don’t know who the accusers are, and not allowed to respond appropriately by questioning them.  Incidently, Smith supported Soubirous when he ran for Supervisor and had close ties to the Soubirous family.  What made this campaign different for RPOA?  Did the order come from the City?

Smith said he would have nothing to gain by making up a story about what Soubirous said. “As a law enforcement officer, if I am proven to be less than credible, that’s potentially career-ending,” he said.  But does he?  Does the Cop Play Book tell a different story?

SEVEN

Are the actions of the seven responsible for this embarrassing political train wreck?

10274177_10202919843310306_2925018241049635978_n

The wife and I have lived at this address for 42 years…we have had outstanding council reps, Arden Anderson, Rosanna Scott, Frank Schiavone, Paul Davis and now Mike Soubirous.  The unfounded “complaints” lodged against Councilman Soubirous are a joke. Apparently our City Manager and Chief Diaz got their bowels in a uproar over statement{s} made by the police union president or whatever title he hold/held. What a waste of tax payers money for lawyer fees. The approx. $98.000.00 would have bought alot of books for the libraries.  We support Councilman Soubirous 110% against these complaints or whatever you want to call them. Same goes for the investigation of Paul Davis too…Suck it Up Boys…get over it and save the City of Riverside taxpayers money for good causes not mickey-mouse charges.  –  Gordon Williams, Commenter on the PE 
Smith met with Soubirous one time alone and Soubirious met with one time with Aurelio Melendrez. You would think that if Smith felt there was any inclination of inappropriateness by Soubirous, he would attempt to record the moment or bring along a second party (which he claims are in RPOA’s “policy”).   He did not.  In fact he supported Soubirous for County Supervisor, even then giving him a campaign check.

RPOASUPPORTMIKESUPERVISOR

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Chief Sergio Diaz also supported Soubirious by giving him a $500.00 personal check.  Smith, Diaz and Soubirous were friends.  Soubirous even loaned his truck out (several times) to Chief Diaz.  So what happened?  Was it that he couldn’t be bought?  He asked the questions he shouldn’t have asked?

Does Melendrez appears to conceive that RPD is an independent “organization” as stated at City Council?  An organization (or organisation) is an entity, such as an institution or an association, that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment.  Has Riverside’s finest lost there way?  Concerned citizens and local community groups in Riverside agree that changes need to be made.  The Riverside Police Department cannot be part of as an independent external entity, it cannot be effective distancing themselves from the community, they must be part of the community.

Aurelio made it very clear that there “organization” should be autonomous..  I don’t know what world he is living in, but the residents of Riverside pay his salary and all of those in RPD. If he would like to be in control of his own organization, he should try to privatize it and start up his own armed security company, otherwise it gives the impression of a rogue organization.  A police force which has no transparency or accountability!  Why would someone think this was anything but open, honest and transparent?  The residents, the taxpayers, pay a lot of money for their salaries and pensions, and they come back and treat us in a condescending manner?  That’s unacceptable! It’s apparent that RPOA only cares about their members, the members of their “organization,”  as opposed to the taxpayer who pays their salaries, who they are there to protect and serve..or are they really self serving?  I ask this because the question arises as to where their loyalty lies?  Is it an attempt to separate law enforcement from their responsibilities and loyalties to the community residents? We may attempt to say yes, only by their actions.. Actions speak louder than words.

Mr. Smith, do the majority of RPD officers believe in what you are doing? If so, the taxpayers best interest is not at heart and we have a conflict and a question of loyalty. Your oath should state that.  To breach that would cause a health and safety issue with the taxpayers, that you’ve taken an oath to protect and serve.  Would you hold the taxpayer hostage to the wishes of your organization?  This would be a cause of breaching your contract with the taxpayer.  We as taxpayers asked RPOA to replace the cost of this kangaroo investigation.  We asked the amount to be replaced to the General Fund.  We ask that you resign as well as Aurelio Melendrez, or be fired.  This the community of Riverside ask, in the hopes they will not be retaliated against, we know we will.

Regardless, I would like RPOA President Brian Smith to chime in on this.. especially placing his Chief as a “deity” or “god like”.  That statement just seemed off the beaten track.  It is also easy to use big words and threats on the taxpayer, with the taxpayers own money.  Should this be acceptable to the tax payer or criminal? I say this because we then attempt to arise to a different level of reasoning. Those who work for us and take an oath to protect and serve, those who pay for their services, can actually take a different route..a route that doesn’t include the taxpayer.  Therefore what do we have as a police force?  We have a double dipping Chief of Police who was approximately two years late with his Strategic Plan… Again I say it, he was not qualified!   And as a citizen and taxpayer, I should’t be threatened by the Chief of Police nor any citizen/resident in Riverside.  Why does he do this?  What is necessary and hasn’t been done is to investigate Chief Diaz’s background.  If we would have investigated former City Manager Brad Hudson’s background, we would find that he had a criminal background…credit card fraud.  While Mayor Bailey stated that Hudson was a “moral compass” we dispute that..   He did have a criminal past!   The Hudson legacy gave us City Manager Scott Barber and Chief Sergio Diaz.  Two of the four instigators of this Valentines Day Blunder.  Not to mention, Hudson gave us his greatest gift to the residents, $4 billion in unpaid debt. Ask why you are seeing increases in sewer rates and mandatory water conservation, where we own our own water.  We see that this was one issue all can agree on even Smith regarding former City Manager Brad Hudson.  Smith states, “I think Scott’s done a great job for the city considering the bucket of shit he was left with Brad (Hudson) and Tom (DeSantis) and half the City Council that there’s now left him with it.” (pg.20 Smith Investigation, pg. 46 Investigative Report).

bucketsh

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

When Smith commented on this investigation at City Council on June 17th, he hadn’t known that Soubirous actually responded in writing to questions.  The current investigation as it stands was not good enough for Smith at the Jully 22nd, who calls the investigation “incomplete” and would like the DA to get involved.  When a group of conspirators decide that the accused, should not know who is accusing him, or have and information of what the detail charges are. Why would anyone agree to a oral interview?   The law firm didn’t even tape the interviews or had written notes!  Good thing Soubirous didn’t agree to that, and rightfully so.  The law firm could not be trusted, where’s the due process?  The Chief and RPOA should know better, especially the Fourteenth Amendment.  Maybe they don’t know, or maybe they don’t care about the people’s rights?

But it didn’t stop there, Smith claimed in his unsworn testimony that Soubirous wanted a meeting via his phone text. This was unverifiable by Smith, since he states he doesn’t keep his text messages, he deletes all of them.  Unknowingly, Soubirous kept his, and those text contradicted Smith’s testimony. The truth of the matter is that Smith called for a meeting. (pg.7 Smith Interview, pg. 33 of investigational report).

TEXTBRIAN     textone     texttwo     textthree    textfour     textfive

Smith in the interview states Soubirous texted him to set up a meeting, Soubirous personal text show contradicts Smith’s statement. (CLICK ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE).

Why didn’t Smith file a complaint on Soubirous, and was only a witness?  This investigation seems quite remarkable, after all, he created the allegations. In fact,  it was all about Sergeant Brian Smith.  Was he up for a promotion to lieutenant?  What hat was he wearing?  RPOA President or RPD Officer Sergeant Brian Smith?  He was definitely wearing RPOA President hat, and this was not the first time.  The question is what made this meeting different?

We also ask the question of why the suggestion of armed security guards were in order for La Sierra Park? Soubirous originally asked Chief Sergio Diaz about the issue of utilizing RPD officers to patrol at the February 11th, City Council meeting.  Diaz never responded to the question, but instead disrespected Councilman Soubirous and even tried (actually succeeded) to get the audience to laugh at the question at Soubirious expense.  Scott Barber seemed to have to come up with a plan if in fact Diaz refused to comply.  Was armed security the alternative as a result of Diaz’s ego?  RPOA President Brian Smith was in favor of 3 million bucks in overtime money for his “troops.”  Of course this would never happen in the private sector, overtime that is, that is a no-no.  Why couldn’t we utilize that money for hiring new officers at the base salaries? It therefore must be a perk.  But with Diaz claiming there was not enough officers to handle the panhandlers, this seem to be the only viable option left for Soubirous to suggest as a way to fix the problem.

Was Valerie Hill recruited as Ward 3 candidate to run against Soubirous because of her commitment to RPD issues over the taxpayer?  Was Soubirous not chosen because of his position on (he was against) Measure A?  Cindy Roth, of the Greater Riverside Chamber thought so.  Now that we have Measure A, we still apparently have a problem with a shortage of RPD officers, hum… Roth still needed to receive her city taxpayer handouts for her non-profit “laundering” activity.  When will these welfare groups ever do the right thing?  The bottom line is that Soubirous rubbed two RPD officers egos the wrong way, and a conspiratorial retaliation ensued. We saw it first hand, some residents have seen this first hand but have remained intimidated and or quiet.

Smith accuses Soubirous of calling his guys “lazy” when it was Soubirous constituents who made that call. That would be Smith’s real employer, the taxpayer. (pg. 11 Smith Interview, pg.37 Investigative Report). Smith then wanted those emails and names, was he thinking of retaliation of those constituents?  It seems like Smith is parroting his boss, Sergio Diaz, who in his email to Soubirious stated to him that he (Soubirous) referred to RPD as “Lazy.”  Did Diaz make this up and his little boy Brian follows Daddy’s lead?  We need to ask the question of why the community does not contact RPD with their concerns.  I also don’t believe there is a direct contact number anymore, except for 911.

copslazy

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Why did Diaz avoid the issue of mental health training suggestions to help avoid officer-involved shootings when dealing with mentally disturbed or violent persons, when brought up by John Brandriff at a CPRC meeting?   Then he retaliated against him.. What kind of person with a badge and gun does a thing as this; without a badge, gun and power would someone actually attempt to do this?

According to Smith account in reference to Chief Diaz’s job being in jeopardy, he states that “Sergio Diaz is a “deity” in this City.”  “Other than the elected Sheriff of Riverside County, you are not going to remove Sergio Diaz without an uprising from the city and the citizens here and the employees that work for him.”  This according to his Smith’s interview.  Now remember non of these interviewees were legally sworn in to tell the truth, according to law.

DEITY:
1. a god or goddess
2. the state of being divine; godhead
3. the rank, status, or position of a god
4. the nature or character of God

I’m not sure where he gets this, but most of the community of Riverside sees otherwise.  Why Smith would support Diaz, against community feelings is a misnomer.  We ask the question to what is Smith’s MO?  Again, the taxpayers of Riverside would like to be reimbursed for the amount of $49K times 4, by RPOA, City Manager Scott Barber and Chief of Police Sergio Diaz for this conspiratorial debacle and attempting to trump are Democratic process!  Who are the real criminal masterminds?

Untitled-1                        sb                           DIAZ

character                                        whiner                                                      god

Just the fact that at one time Chris Lanzillo was President of RPOA running the show, makes we wonder as to their MO’s when it comes to taxpayer’s monies, and what they will do to ensure that they get it.

Another promotional piece by the PE. Not going to work Press Enterprise. RPD Chief Sergio Diaz is a liability to the city of Riverside. He has already been found guilty of using inappropriate and vulgar language toward Riverside resident John Brandriff. Where do I start. Diaz has had numerous unprovoked angry outbursts toward several residents with whom he disagrees. RPD Chief Sergio Diaz is a bad role model for the Riverside Police Department. Among the things that he has said to residents: grow some balls – it is politically unwise to get me upset – if you have any political ambitions in this town, you do not cross me – residents who live in their mothers basement, sitting in their underwear, eating cheeto’s – you should not be able to say anything – you are a disgrace …    Sergio Diaz refuses to attend RCPA Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability community meetings. Sergio Diaz refuses to accept any proposals from the city’s CPRC recommendations police commission. Sergio Diaz supports out-dated police policies that have cost Riverside taxpayers into the six digits due to lawsuits from residents who have been injured or killed by the Riverside police department.  Is this the kind of behavior that Riverside should have as a police chief ?  Let’s get a REAL police chief, preferably someone from within our own department.  No more LAPD transfers !!!    -Don Gallegos, commenter on the PE

 FORBES DECLARES RIVERSIDE A “COOL CITY”… 
The City of Riverside is rated #8 on their 2014 list of Cool Cities (CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FORBES ARTICLE)
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

 aerialB-housing-developmenta

WE WERE TOLD THEY ONLY GLOW AT NIGHT..

Now That six families in a two block area of the contamination have cancer will you admit you lied to us All you better than us city and government of Riverside. Have talked till I am blue but it didn’t make the cancer go away or the contamination of the soil we eat everyday while they build Jurupa Ave. When the people who move the dirt get cancer or breathing problems then will you do something more  – Marilyn Whitney, commenter to TMC

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

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

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

memoone     memotwo     memothree

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL MEMO WITH ANALYTICAL CONTAMINANT RESULTS

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

factsheet

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL FACT SHEET

When the incident initially occurred, why was not Hazmat or the Fire Department called?  Why wasn’t the clean up crew suited properly as required by hazmat?  According to a letter by Debbie Anderson, Associate Engineer, the Developer Chuck Cox, contacted approximately 7 days after the digester was breached, on City owned property.  He attempted, to single handedly take care of a problem that even a hired pumping company refused to take on.  Cox according to former Assistant City Manager Michael Beck, was on the property doing the grading work without a legal city permit!  The land was still City owned.  Who gets this treatment in the real world without knowing someone?  When then Assistant Public Works Director Tom Boyd first was told of the spill, he immediately directed Water Quality Control and Street Services staff to clean up the sludge spill.  Where was Public Works Director Siobhan Foster?  She was directly responsible for the Public Works Department.  The  City didn’t even know what they were dealing with and they called for staff employees not trained to clean up an unknown.  When an unknown is discovered, why wasn’t Hazmat or the Fire Department called in?  In Debbie’s hand written notes, she states that Public Works told them (Cox) that they could do the grading work without a permit!  In addition she mentions that the locks on the property were changed, but they broke them.  When checking for an engineering license in the State of California, Siobhan Foster does not show she holds a license, but Boyd’s license does come up.  This answers a lot of questions in the sense if Foster and of course Beck really knew what they were doing.

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

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

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

poundingx

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

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

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

clownpriamos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letitia Pepper

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

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

Brown Act Primer: Closed Sessions

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

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

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

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

brian smith         aureliomelendrez

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

June 17, 2014 City Council: Public

Brian Smith, RPOA President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aurelio Melendrez

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

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

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

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

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

melendrez1A

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

MS

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

hillmailer

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

BARBER

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

Pu1T0UfvSGJyBBMf-r3kE2dJ-d6fbR2ktzstZ2nkWjkh1QUhkDIc0xkOsbm-1VNCfVrccqA5V7pcE74BVoRrQo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian C Smith

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

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

Hi Brian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, thank-you for contacting us.

All the best,  Javier Moreno

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

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

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

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

Letitia E. Pepper

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

 

CODE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!   COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS!  WE JUST CAN’T SPELL!  EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT:   THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

 deep-blue-sky-with-clouds-800x368 copy

This was an article we posted back in May of 2012 when we requested all contracts for outside legal help by the City Attorney’s office.  There were no documents responsive!  This was recently brought to the forefront with a new article by Dan Bernstein from the Press Enterprise, “Riverside: The (Hidden) Cost of Business.”   Bernstein refers to all the non contractual outside legal services which are not documented, a hidden cost as he calls it, but not hidden to taxpayer monies.  One of the most striking documents we at TMC found a couple of years ago was one which Best, Best & Krieger had their own charge card, to charge the City of Riverside as they needed to for legal work rendered.  Charges to the tune in excess of six figures?

CorpCard    CCTWO    CCTHREE    CCFOUR    CCFIVE

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENTS OF CORPORATE CARD

 The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval.  The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts.  The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.

4-14-09 PRR 1 of 2 001                      4-14-09 PRR 2 of 2 001                     4-27-09 City response 001

CLICK ON ABOVE DOCUMENT IMAGES TO ENLARGE

sec702

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The question then arose was because of Section 702 Eligilbility, powers and duties of the City Attorney, from the City of Riverside City Charter.   This section of the charter stated, “The City Council shall have control over all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney therein.”  We were told that state bar requires a lawyer to provide a contract for any work done for a client.  We believe that Section 702 makes all outside legal services require approval by the majority of the City Council.

With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber.  The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous.  The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval.  We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.

Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.”  We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent.  The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.

 Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.”  We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?”  If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals.  When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?”  How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies?  What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter?  A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.

We say this because of the circumstances.  We bring the incident which involved our current City Manager Scott Barber. Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza.  He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact.  Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager?  The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council.  Certainly violated the Charter Amendment.  What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them?  A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.

Or the time, which involved City Attorney Greg Priamos denying that he had anything to do with the command for the arrest of public speaker, Karen Wright.  Officer Sahagun was commanded by the City Attorney to arrest public speaker Karen Wright.  Then Priamos calls the police report “inaccurate”, this then implies that officer Sahagun is s liar.  Brian Smith, RPOA President states, “we call that a lie in the profession, and the State of California calls it lying in a police report a crime.”  So if it is in fact a lie, will Priamos prosecute Officer Sahagun for falsifying a police report?  To this day it remains unclear what Priamos meant by referring to the report as “inaccurate.”  In addition, has yet to give an explanation of what was actually said between himself and Officer Sahagun.  Again is City Attorney Greg Priamos a liar?

The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity?  What should be done about it?  Why isn’t anything being done about it now?”  It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.”  So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge?

MAY 2012 ORIGINAL TMC ARTICLE: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING CONTRACTS!”

may2014two

It has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside.  What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.

According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated.   When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent.  According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record.  Therefore, non is required.  Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on?  This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading.  And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies.  You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture.  Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos.  But there was nothing to hide after allowing $159 million in illegal RDA loans to be approved by City Council, then rejected by the Finance Office for the State of California.  What would then be the result of his performance evaluation, which was being discussed in closed sessions Tuesday April 4, 2012, at City Council?  I’m sure, just as it went well for our former City Manager, this will go well..

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW DENIAL LETTER

Above is a letter sent to Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos.  The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, ‘how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”?  What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with.  Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer.  We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act.  As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract?  I would say not.  When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”?  Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer?  If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.”  One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside?   What is it between the two?  As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card?  It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

 And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more.  So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers?  It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost.  So who’s minding the store?  Inquiring taxpayers would like to know.  But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register.  Why? Quite possibly in their incestuous relationship that has grown over the years.

Such as the cozy arrangement between certain ex city of riverside employees or just BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees.  Conflict of interest?   The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, on their boards and committees are numerous.  Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership).  BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.  Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California.   In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach.  What a surprise, it’s signed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K.  Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”.  Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off…  Wish we could, but it gets better.

CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW WHOLE DOCUMENT

Then there is developer Mark Rubin’s connected liaison with the City of Riverside and the City’s alter ego, the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt the brazen display of a conflict of interest displayed and perpetrated by the City of Riverside in approving the Citrus Tower’s lease deal between Best, Best & Krieger, Developer Mark Rubin and the City of Riverside.  “Three peas in a pod?”  Is it at all possible that the BB&K deal was orchestrated and designed to provide a lease revenue stream for the bonds held on the Citrus Tower project?  Was BB&K involved in bond advice for the city?  Councilman Paul Davis first told colleagues he’d heard concerns about “the general perception of the gift of public funds and creating a monopoly” to benefit a private developer, but he ended by saying it was a moot point because the city already has signed a lease.  How long will the City of Riverside continue to terrorize the taxpayer with shear incompetence and their breach of fiduciary duty to protect the coffers of hard earned taxpayer monies by the City Attorney’s Office? Good questions for City Attorney Greg Priamos, who coicidently has attended two of my alma maters, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California.  A sad day for both university’s Gregory.  The question in the community are the ruthless expenditures within the City Attorney’s Office.  How much taxpayer money has been litigated out, or settled out as if it was your own, without any rational cognitive reasoning?  Or was it just for sport?  Or is the threat of litigation just a city tool used against the opposition for what is known in the business as “client control”?  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  TMC believes the later is mostly true at our expense.  Therefore why would the city litigate to the tune of 9 million, then lose, and then have to award out 250K in one documented case?  Of course, that wouldn’t happened because after all as taxpayers we should all believe what the city does is rational and in our best interest.  Well the truth of the fact is, that it did, and nothing was in our best interest.  Though he serves at the pleasure of the council, should the City Attorney answer rightfully to the employer, which would be “we the people”?  This I say because the council and mayor has failed to supervise the activities of the city attorney.  The failure is such that we must ask the question of what makes one believe the city attorney needs to incorporate police lights with all the bells and whistles in their pimped out city vehicle? Where did one lose the sight of whose money it really is?  TMC can’t answer that, but I’m sure there is a rational answer from our city attorney, as in the case with the ‘no contracts allowed with our best customer.’  It may not be right but it is an answer.  Ultimately, the council and mayor is responsible for the activities, failures and actions of the city attorney.  In an article in Cactus Thorns, the 29 Palms City Council questions the spending to their City Attorney,  and when they looked at public records, that was even a total shock.   In this continuing painful saga, one can hire BB&K to run a city attorney’s office.  Carte Blanche in Riverside. For a price, instant city attorney, as in this article in The Orange County Register?  In the City of Yorba Linda, for example, BB&K attorney Sonia Carvalho represented the city in the capacity of the City Attorney for over a decade.  Conflict of interest? 

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