Subject: Press Release for Immediate Distribution – Lawsuit filed challenging City of Riverside Electric General Fund Transfer as a violation of Proposition 26
In a complaint filed yesterday in Riverside Superior Court, the Law Offices of Raychele B. Sterling brought allegations that the City of Riverside, through its ownership of Riverside Public Utilities (“RPU”), violated Proposition 26, approved by voters in 2010, when the City Council in December of 2013 changed the formula by which it calculates the tax generated from electric utility operating revenues (known as the General Fund Transfer), so as to increase taxes paid by its ratepayers to its general fund. The complaint contends that the City Council changed the formula to pay off a settlement agreement involving the City’s water utility, and did so without a public vote as required by the State of California Constitution.
According to the filing, the City of Riverside violated its City Charter for a decade by transferring a portion of the monies it receives annually as part of its participation in the California Independent System Operator system, referred to as the Transmission Revenue Requirement, to its general fund instead of keeping those monies at its electric utility. Further, the City classified the Transmission Revenue Requirement as non-operating revenues for a decade before intentionally misclassifying them as operating revenues for the sole purpose of extracting higher taxes from its electric utility customers.
The plaintiff seeks to halt the approximately $40 million/year the City collects in taxes from its electric ratepayers as part of its General Fund Transfer and to return the $115 million in transfer taxes taken the past 3 years from RPU.
“For years city officials have ignored near-constant complaints by members of the general public that Riverside Public Utilities has been overcharging its customers in order to support the City’s general fund,” Ms. Sterling said. “Today, we begin to shine a light on the hidden taxes the City of Riverside has imposed upon its RPU’s customers – particularly the elderly, poor, and disabled – causing them considerable economic and personal hardship. It was particularly sickening to discover that this illegal tax increase was a scheme devised by the City to avoid having its general fund pay off a settlement agreement regarding an illegal water utility tax. These financial shell games must end.”
Established in 1895, Riverside Public Utilities is a consumer-owned water and electric utility governed by a Board of nine community volunteers that provides services to over 105,000 metered electric customers and 63,000 metered water customers throughout the City of Riverside.
The Law Offices of Raychele B. Sterling is located in Riverside, California and provides law services to victims of government fraud, abuse and corruption.
Again I believe we have a disconnect between the ratepayers and the City. The City created a situation whereby no one had any other choice but to bring forward a lawsuit due to concerns of RPU monies, it seems this is the only way they listen. We cannot wait another 13 years before our voices are heard. What will Michael Colantuono have to say about this?
MICHAEL COLANTUONO, ESQ.
Again, most of this occurred under the watchful eyes of former Public Utilities General Manager Dave Wright, who left (maybe saw the writing on the wall) to ‘sin city,’ Las Vegas, then to Los Angeles, where recently they have had there own set of embarrassing problems.
And Don’t forget to VOTE for Vivian Moreno Mayor 2016…..She will definitely keep everyone HONEST!
UPDATE: 05.02.2016: HUMAN RESOURCES BRENDA DIEDRICHS LEAVES THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, TO BE RECYLED TRASH AT A NEW JOB IN ORANGE COUNTY.
Will the City Attorney’s Office Audit show that her law firm, Law Offices of Brenda Diedrichs, was paid indiscriminately with tax payer monies, due the fact there was no contract? While working as Human Resource Director? This while on Councilman Davis’s and Mayor Bailey’s watch. Which were told, but did nothing…
What is really telling is that Senator Roth’s Law Firm is on this Audit, whom did legal work for the City. His wife, Cindy Roth, Riverside Chamber of Commerce, was taking taxpayer handouts to keep her organization afloat. The question, if you need hand outs to sustain your business in the form of taxpayer subsidies, are you a good business? The rest of us, true entrepreneurs or business people, must make it within the free market by our own perserverance or just dissolve.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com
THE GRESHAM SAVAGE DEAL: A WIN, WIN FOR GRESHAM SAVAGE, AGAIN AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
The taxpayers just bought a $40 million dollar building, how do we help maintain it? Sublease some space from a partner in crime know as the legal outfit of Gresham Savage? With that in mind, the City Attorneys office who gets paid by the taxpayer will be paying rent in their new taxpayer paid building.
So how does all this benefit the taxpayer? It won’t, the fact of the matter is that it will cost an additional $411.035.00 from the taxpayer! Currently, the City Attorneys occupation of the 5th Floor of City Hall has a yearly cost of $208,039.00. The total annual cost in rent the City would pay to Grease-Them-Savagley would be $548,046.00. Bad deal at a cost to the taxpayer. Of course the other side are emphasizing that we need the space! We are hiring more attorneys and the cubicles at City Hall do not allow for privacy for sensitive legal issues. But why is the City Attorney’s Office anticipating hiring more lawyers? The City of Riverside already has approximately about 13 (not sure)? But we want to hire more, not to include all the other outside legal firms we may have contracted and on retainer. City of Moreno Valley with a population of 200K has two attorney’s. The City of Murreta with a population of 100K has one. The question, is how many laws suits against the City are we receiving? If that is what is happening, why is it happening? Why is the City receiving so much liability?
This completely smells of Deja Vu with the bad deal made with Developer Mark Rubin’s building Citrus Towers. We initially assumed Best, Best & Krieger’s lease so that they could move to his new building. RPU taking over this lease to move into this gold plated building, cost the taxpayers a pretty penny which shouldn’t have happened, because we had plenty of taxpayer properties that could have been occupied at low expense. But is this culture of elitism whereby the real interest of the taxpayers doesn’t really matter? What happened to public service and public servants?
At this time the City Attorney’s Office, along with Riverside Public Utilities will now reside in the $40 million dollar Wells Fargo building. With that in mind, the best part is that the City, in the best of interest of the taxpayer was able to negotiate a rate of $2.50 per rentable square foot to $2.25 per square foot. Along with this there will also be a one time cost of a $125, 000.00 to cover the cost of moving, new furniture, fixtures and equipment. This at a time when City Manager John Russo is going around town to public meetings stating that we don’t have money and need tighten our belts.
According to local residents, the City refuses to give a tour to them on this Gold Plated building. You paid for a $40 million dollar building, but you can’t see what you bought! Is the America you want to live in? One was told that City Manager John Russo and even Councilman Mike Gardner said “no!” As a result, following records request was sent by Attorney Raychele Sterling.
In light of the Public Utilities Director’s and Councilman Mike Gardner’s (with the alleged concurrence of the City Manager) refusal to permit a tour of the recently remodeled PU facility located on University Avenue by members of the community who are critical of PU’s extravagant expenditures (while allowing other non-critical members of the public to observe the facility), please make the following available for my review:
1) Entire project file for the PU Board Room/Multi Purpose Room remodel (including all photographs).
2) All Purchase Orders and Purchase Requisitions for the past 5 years for the procurement of any furniture (module or stationary), electronics (excluding PCs, Printers, Photocopiers), art, photography or sculptures, appliances (including refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves etc.) flooring, tile and carpet for Riverside Public Utilities.
3) A list of all participants (including the Chamber of Commerce members) in ANY tour of ANY City Facility and all accompanying releases of liability for the past 5 years. I personally have observed and participated in tours of the Sewer Treatment Plant, RERC, Orange Square and Utilities Plaza, as well as witnessed the execution of releases of liability by members of the public for such tours.
4) Any current policies and procedures regarding touring of City facilities by members of the public. 5) All releases for PU’s “Bring Your Daughter to Work Day”, as well as a list of the facilities where these individuals were permitted to be for the past five years.
6) All releases for any “Bring your Child to Work Day”, “Shadow the Mayor Day” or “Shadow a Council Member Day”, Grade School tours, or the like, and a list of any and all facilities these individuals were permitted to be in for the past five years.
7) List of any currently scheduled or proposed tours of ANY City Facility by any individuals or group. Please identify the facilities intended to be toured.
8) A List of all PU facilities (please identify specific rooms as well) that were open to the public to attend City and/or Utility meetings within the past 5 years.
9) A list of all City employees who have provided tours of ANY City facility to members of the public.
Upon review, I will determine what documents I would like to duplicated. Thank you
Raychele Sterling, Esq.
WHAT IS THE STORY ON THIS SMALL PIECE OF CITY LAND THAT A BASKETBALL COURT AND TENNIS COURT WERE BUILT ON?
No one seems to know how a Tennis Court and Basketball Court was built on City Land! Even Development Director Emilio Ramirez didn’t have an answer for Council. The issue (Item #14) was removed from the Consent Calender by Council. According to Ramirez, City documents could not be found which showed a timeline of permits for building etc.
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO 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!
On April 6th an anonymous email came in to Thirty Miles of Corruption concerning some current and former staff members at City Hall. There were four issues, one of which had to deal with sex in the work place. We were going to take the email to the monthly Human Resources Board meeting and address the boss herself, HR Director Brenda Diederichs, as to the allegations. With email in hand, merrily we arrived to the meeting … but it had been cancelled at the last minute with no notice given to the public. Staff and board members had of, course, been advised of this already, so as to not waste their time showing up. TMC realizes the public is low man of the totem pole in Riverside, so we accepted our fate and moved on.
Now what were we our options? For you see, there is no formal complaint policy in place at the City to address such issues. The public has raised this issue before, only to be ignored by those on the dais. We first contacted Councilman Mike Soubrious by phone and read him the email. He certainly didn’t sound shocked by it. In fact, he stated these allegations were just a small piece of a larger puzzle. Hmmmm … we wonder what he meant by that? We couldn’t take the letter to City Manager Lee McDougal (that’s a whole other story, but will be told, much to the chagrin of Mr. McDougal we suspect). With no other alternatives available, we decided to take our story right to City Council.
So at City Council on April 7th, we stood before all seven council members and the mayor and read the staff email … and all hell broke loose. In the history of attending the council meetings, we have never seen such a response. Apparently, the email was deemed so salacious by the powers that be that the video of the meeting was taken off the City’s website and government television channel. That’s right folks: you will never be able to view the video on the City’s web site because of this censorship. If you want the entire video you can order it from the City Clerk, but it will NEVER be posted again. However, in the spirit of transparency, and as a free service to the public, we at TMC offer it here for the viewing public.
‘It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.” – Noël Coward, Blithe Spirit .
Many on staff at the City of Riverside have been coming to Thirty Miles, anonymously, for their voice for years. This is certainly not the first time we have brought an email to a board or council meeting. Most employees know that if they come forward with any honest information or concerns that are in any way perceived as potentially embarrassing for management of the City, they will be retaliated against or fired: that is a fact. Just as Raychele Sterling, Jason Hunter, Sean Gill, or countless others. This has been an ongoing problem for years, which remains unaddressed.
TMC has taken up the cause of staff issues a number of times in the past. One of our favorites recurring themes involves sex in the workplace: City Hall’s worst-kept, dirty little secret. Now of course, we enjoy a scandalous tryst as much as anybody, but there’s another reason these romantic rendezvous capture our attention…
Where do you think the money comes from to run City Hall? The taxpayers and ratepayers of Riverside foot the bill for the salaries for all employees and operations already. Should we also have to pay for conferences that are really lovers’ vacations as well? How about 2 hour lunches for folks to look starry-eyed into each others eyes, aka time card fraud?
There are other reasons sex in the workplace is detrimental to the taxpayer. Moral suffers amongst fellow employees who suspect favoritism which then affect their productivity suffers. When unqualified girlfriends/boyfriends get promoted over better candidates it ends up costing the taxpayer millions of dollars because of bad decisions. The City knows this of course. For example, let’s take a look at the Neely Nakamora vs. City of Riverside case. Former Assistant City Manager Tom Desantis, a subject matter expert we’ve been told, testified in court that workplace relationships hurt the taxpayer. The Council may pretend to be shocked by the email, but that’s just the facade they put on for the public.
Let’s talk about accountability for a moment. Our City has been trying to figure out what to do with the former Riverside Golf Course on the north side of town for years now. At one point, there was momentum for developing a soccer complex on the site. The developers who wanted the contract spent thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars putting their plans together to present to the city council. The City/taxpayer spent almost two full years working on this project, an entire department laboring away.
Well what happened? The project went quietly into the night. It unraveled because of cover-ups and scandals from the previous administration, much of it having to do with a certain executive who had been promoted because of her ability to do the horizontal mambo we hear. Now we’re back to square one. And where’s the accountability? Have you ever seen anyone from the city of Riverside ever admit to a mistake, or heaven-forbid try to quantify one. They will happily just charge the taxpayer more – it’s free after all! The taxpayer just has to pay the bill. Now we’re told by our master that the public is not allowed to ask or encourage the council to look into matters that affect us all? Well, what are they there for?
And that’s not all. For you see, relationships beget hurt feelings sometime, which in turn result in sexual harassment lawsuits. And guess what? You will be forced ultimately to pay out all legal fees, investigative and court cost, settlements, verdicts, etc., all in the name of love. If the public were to examine the typical weekly closed session City Council agenda, they would find a handful or two lawsuits against the City, maybe 20 to 25 a month. Some ongoing, some new, and some anticipated. Who do you think is writing check for all this? … Us.
Nice to see people raising hell in this county, to be sure. The government and politicians always try to find a way to hide stuff. How childish to BAN the airing of council meetings because they don’t like the content; that is a real joke. Also, I’m not a lawyer, but it might violate some type of rights of the public.
People who don’t live near the meetings, are in ill health, disabled, etc., have no way to see what is going on at the controversial meetings. The City requiring a public records request is also troublesome, because its sole purpose is to DISCOURAGE the public from obtaining public information. You probably know all this stuff anyhow, but I think there are some constitutional issues to be addressed. Anyhow, I have to get back to proofreading. Be well and stay safe!
Public Utilities General Manager, Girish “the Bag Man” Balachandran
Since brought to the attention of Balachandran back in November of 2014, he has continued to give the public the bird when it comes to representing our interests. Is he 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, in this case his his board membership with the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce? Will things change? We’ll find out soon, as the topic’s scheduled for the next Governmental Affairs Committee … and right before an election too! Bad timing for the status quo.
Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside Principle Resource Analyst, who was fired for reporting assorted executive tomfoolery within Riverside Public Utilities, speaks during City Council public comment on April 14, 2015. Hunter points to the camera in the rear because of a new, old, new policy to film the public, and only the public, using the camera waaaaaay back in the rear of the Council Chambers, brought about by, “below the belt,” comments made by public speaker Vivian Moreno the previous week. We’re told it is now official City Council policy, although we don’t know when they met to talk about it in yet another in a long line of apparent Brown Act violations. Wanting to see the backsides of the public is a bit kinky if you ask us, but perhaps that’s a better question to ask Interim City Manager McDougal … who knows a thing or two about that.
Hunter asks the question: what is the purpose of having a $300,000,000 stockpile of cash at Riverside Public Utilities? Who knows!…because our Water Utility has no Reserve Policy! The Electric Fund has a policy, but is 10 years old and completely outdated, and no one in the City is following it anyway. What the City has done is set the utility rates too high, resulting in a cash reserve which the city cannot justify … so give it back to the community we say.
What’s apparent is that the City needs to decrease utility rates, and give back, oh say, $100 million or so back to the 100,000 customers of Riverside Public Utilities. That’s comes out to a nice tidy $1000.00 check apiece. The larger question of course is: why were the rates set so high for so long? Was it so that executives at Public Utilities could pay for every mistake that would every come up? One being…San Onofre? Or was it to maximize the annual transfer from the utilities to the General Fund to keep those glorious salaries and benefits going, and allow the Council to continue its fat cat spending ways?
One thing’s for certain: with Hunter’s lawsuit against the City settled, we can look forward to hearing from him every week in 2015 about another unethical or illegal activity that’s been funded with ratepayer money. Hopefully, the District Attorney is watching.
During public comment, folks watching MgmTV (McDougal Gluteus Maximus Television), will be treated to a new, “below the belt,” perspective of City Council meetings. Juvenile as it may seem to the community, viewing public speakers from behind will not make the real issues in the City of Riverside go away. They still need to be addressed, even if city hall isn’t quite ready to handle the truth.
Jaime Hurtado filed paperwork this month with the county Registrar of Voters to run for the Fifth Supervisorial District three years from now. Ashley, who has represented the district since 2002 and was re-elected last year, has said he won’t run again. Hurtado, a Moreno Valley resident, has been on Ashley’s staff since 2003, working his way up to Chief of Staff. How well did Ashley groom Hurtado to continue his legacy … as some residents have said … to continue a legacy of corruption?
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “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 ONETWO 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
PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAP WITH DEVELOPMENT IN COMPARISON TO ORIGINAL 1963 AERIAL (CLICK TO ENLARGE PIC)
Current housing development now known as Arroyo Park approximately superimposed over a 1963 aerial of the original Riverside Sewer Site. Red Arrow over proposed boundary map (second pic-below left) displays approximate position of broken sewer digesters. The housing development within the dark lines is the proposed properties which will be under consideration of the new community facilities district. The new homes and properties will be subject to the additional tax on top of the standard property tax. Third pic below right, original aerial of the Riverside Agricultural Park which includes the original City Sewer System.
Resident Jim Martin speaks about Developer Chuck Cox’s comment regarding the AG Park property (aka Arroyo Park) being a “toxic dump” site. ( CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW YOUTUBE). Resident of Ward 7 Jim Martin, calls out council and reinforces the statement that developer Chuck Cox referenced AG Park, aka Arroyo Park, as a “Toxic Dump.” Martin also made the claim that the City of Riverside spent over $1 million on the initial clean up of this site, therefore the City of Riverside has a tremendous investment in this project, regardless of what we are hearing. Further he speaks of the credibility of DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control) for the State of California. What he also states is that the original 15 inch diameter sewer line is significant, why was this significant? It’s significant because this concrete pipe contains PCB’s (Polychlorinated Biphenyls), but was broken up into smaller pieces and now stands in a huge pile waiting for Jurupa Avenue extension to be completed according to Developer Chuck Cox’s engineer Mr. Beers, and this PCB infused concrete rubble will be the the foundation of the Jurupa Avenue extension. It is now known that the oversight by DTSC on particular toxic sites is in question. Further, it is not argued as to why they are being investigated.
TMC was sent the following pics which were purported to show crushed toxic infused concrete being mixed with soil as the foundation for the Jurupa Avenue extension for that property, as Jim Martin stated at public comment, March 3, 2015.
CLICK ON ABOVE PICS TO ENLARGE
What can be seen in the mounds of dirt right behind someones backyard, with what appears to soil infused with crushed concrete, in the subsequent photos one can see crushed concrete laid out and graded by the machinery, then what appears to be mixed in with soil and graded.
Again we see the developer hard balling, intimidating and attempting to strong arm the residents. Residents who attempt to ask the simple question of how they have been impacted by toxic materials that may not have been properly addressed. One resident in particular Marilyn Whitney, was sent this letter by Developer Chuck Cox’s attorney Allen Matkins, who incidentally also does work on occasion for the City of Riverside. The letter appears to utilize the lawyers tools of intimidation, hoping you don’t know your rights scenario. Similar letter was sent to KTLA Channel 5 reporter Kacey Montoya.
The following letter from the County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health which states that test sampling must be witnessed by a Haz Mat representative. Further the letter specifically states that the letter does not relieve the City of Riverside or other associates (possibly developer Chuck Cox) of any responsibilities mandated under the the California Health and Safety Code, if additional or previously unidentified contamination is discovered at this same location. The reason this is important is that the Community Advocates brought the issue of AG Park to the County Supervisors, only to be told by them that this was a City of Riverside issue.
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW FULL LETTER
Activist Vivian Moreno, attempted to correct interim City Manager Lee McDougal from “waffling” on the issue that the City of Riverside “screwed up.” McDougal also states that DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control) canceled their appointment to speak on the AG Park issue. TMC has learned that the reason DTSC canceled their appointment with the City of Riverside is that they could not support the City’s position on AG Park (Arroyo Park), therefore there was a no show. It’s interesting to note they backed out from speaking at Council on short notice. The following is interim City Manager Lee McDougal splaining explaining the whole situation.
Interim Riverside City of Riverside Lee McDougal explain how he feels he was quoted regarding what many at a Friday Morning Club Meeting at the Goeske Senior Center. Many are saying he was “back pedaling” and “waffling.” Activist Vivian Moreno interrupts McDougal and Mayor Bailey gets involved. Again, many now see Lee as a “Smooth Operator.” Cheating is cheating is cheating, and whether it happens to the public, a friend or a spouse – its still cheating. McDougal did give the community the option to have properties tested independently tested at the City of Riverside’s expense. He states that no scientific evidence was given to him, but maybe he does not know how to interpret scientific data. Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason gets involved toward the later part of the video.
The below advertisement shows that the AHV is in the process of selling these homes before they are built.
Advertised through AHV Homes. While residents adjacent and within the vicinity are claiming deaths and illness from cancer, would you purchase a home here, as many are asking. The City of Riverside and Developer Chuck Cox continues to discredit the residents of this area as what appears to be allegedly a “cancer cluster.” According to the below letters sent by developer Chuck Cox to KTLA’s reporter Kacey Montoya and AG Park resident Marilyn Whitney, there is “no toxic dump site.” This was sent by the law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natisis LLP, which incidentally, also does work at taxpayer expense for the city of Riverside.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Yep, a bit on the scary side as many are saying, but don’t shoot the messenger Allen…. A “bullshitter,” as residents are stating, or a law firm you can depend on? Again, an entity hired by the city of Riverside not to defend the taxpayer, but to screw them. Another parasitic law firm, like Best Best & Krieger, that feeds on the sweat of the taxpayers. Worst of all, they retaliate against the taxpayer with their own money. Those that are elderly, sick and dying.
So let me get this straight, first Cox gets attorney Allen Matkins to send letters to KTLA reporter Kacey Montoya and resident Marilyn Whitney telling them that AG Park is not a “toxic dump.” But on March 3rd Chuck Cox publicly calls AG Park a “toxic dump”? There is definitely something rotten in Denmark.
Another fine dirty land deal? What has been commonly known as AG Park a 21.34 acre housing development to built over contaminated ground, cleared by DTSC as safe for development. In order to pay for all the incidentals, which the developer usually incurs the cost, they are proposing to council to set up a CFD in order to hit the taxpayer for $6 million, rather than those responsible. It appears that the property will change hands under developer Chuck Cox’s Friends of Riverside Airport LLC to Friends of Riverside Airport-RSI Arroyo Park LLC, and the developer would like the City of Rivesride to implement a special levy, by declaring the development site a Community Facilities District, aka Mello-Roos. This means a special tax will be collected to pay for all expenses he is responsible for to the tune of $6 million. Is Chuck Cox the City’s new $6 million dollar man? Or will it only become a Bionic crisis for the taxpayer? The problem that has yet been addressed, has the property been given a clean bill of health in lieu of the Department of Toxic Substance Control being investigated.
The Community Facilities Act (more commonly known as Mello-Roos) was a law enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982.[1] The name Mello-Roos comes from its co-authors, Senator Henry J. Mello (D-Watsonville) and Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles). The Act enabled “Community Facilities Districts” (CFDs) to be established by local government agencies as a means of obtaining community funding. Counties, cities, special districts, joint powers authority, and schools districts use these financing districts to pay for public works and some public services.[2]
A Mello-Roos District is an area where a special property tax on real estate, in addition to the normal property tax, is imposed on those real property owners within a Community Facilities District. These districts seek public financing through the sale of bonds for the purpose of financing public improvements and services.[3] These services may include streets, water, sewage and drainage, electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks and police protection to newly developing areas. The tax paid is used to make the payments of principal and interest on the bonds.
Therefore, localities that have been empowered by state law or local law can levy these special taxes on their residents to fund the capital costs of a wide variety of public improvements (such as roads and sewer services), as well as the ongoing operation and maintenance costs of a limited number of public services (such as schools, police and fire protection services, libraries, etc.) that benefit the community. But of course, these are prone to abuse.
The work on this project to date has been undertaken by the City’s financing team, which consists of bond counsel (Best Best & Krieger), special tax consultant (Albert A. Webb Associates) and the financial advisor (CSG Advisors). Staff members from the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office are coordinating the formation process. This already should be telling seeing that Best Best & Krieger and Albert A. Webb & Associates are in on this deal.
Some of the details of the language being brought forward to the Riverside City Council as follows:
Owner has the option to purchase that certain real property located on approximately 21.34 gross acres of land including Tract No. 28987 (the “Property”) located in the City, commonly known as “Arroyo Park” from Friends of the Riverside Airport, L.L.C., a California limited liability company. Of course it is commonly known as “AG Park.”
The City, is in the process of establishing a community facilities district pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.5 (commencing with § 53311) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, commonly known as the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982” (the “Act”), over and including the Property for the purpose of levying special taxes (the “Special Taxes”) and selling bonds, in one or more series (the “Bonds”), in an amount sufficient to finance the acquisition of land and improvements thereon for public use, and the design, planning, engineering, installation, and construction of certain public facilities and improvements, to be owned, operated or maintained by the City (the “City Facilities”) to satisfy the obligation of the Property and the Owner for the payment of certain fees to the City. The Public Facilities are generally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, which Public Facilities are necessary to the development of the Property. Said community facilities district shall be known as the “City of Riverside Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Arroyo Park).”
Section 3. Types of Facilities and Incidental Expenses.
(a) The types of public facilities proposed to be provided for and financed by the proposed community facilities district are street and road facilities, including street lights and traffic signals, storm water drainage facilities, water system facilities, including capacity in existing facilities, sewer system facilities, including capacity in existing facilities and sewage treatment capacity, or such other facilities of the City which have a useful life of five years or longer(the “Facilities”).
(b) The incidental expenses which will be incurred are: (i) the cost of planning and designing such facilities and the cost of environmental evaluations thereof, (ii) all costs associated with the formation of the proposed community facilities district, issuance of the bonds thereof, the determination of the amount of and collection of taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the community facilities district, and (iii) any other expenses
The following is what is proposed that these properties pay for in the proposed Funding and Acquisition Agreement which is set for approximately $3.9 million, but the actually wiggle room requested expands to $6 million, therefore $2.1 million in taxpayer monies are questionable in appearance.
This was discussed at City Council at 2:00pm on March 3, 2015 on the discussion calender, public invited to speak on the this subject. We believe this should not go forward until the issue is fully investigated by an outside independent agency with reference to the safety issues brought up by residents, but will appear again for discussion and approval April 28, 2015 at 3:00pm within the City Council Chambers. Concerned community members should show up for this very important issue.
What public speakers had to say on the proposed issue:
Section 4. Special Taxes. Except where funds are otherwise available, special taxes sufficient to pay for all such facilities, to pay for debt service on other obligations of the City relating to such facilities, and to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds of the proposed community facilities district and the annual administrative expenses of the City and the proposed community facilities district in determining, apportioning, levying and collecting such special taxes, and in paying the principal of and interest on such bonds and the costs of registering, exchanging and transferring such bonds, secured by the recordation of a continuing lien against all taxable or nonexempt property in the proposed community facilities district, shall be annually levied within the proposed community facilities district. This is also in the above Intention to Establish CFD, (Community Facilities District), but referring to Section 4.
AG PARK BACKGROUND: ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING CITY OF RIVERSIDE MEMO TO FILE PER DEBBIE ANDERSON, ASSOCIATED ENGINEER, THE DIGESTER BREAKAGE OCCURRED IN AND ABOUT JULY 1ST OR 2ND OF 2003 ACCORDING TO COX’S ENGINEER BOB BEERS. This is important because Jorge Moreno, Office of Communications for the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) stated that the department didn’t get involved until 2005, two years after the fact. The response plan by DTSC, according to their records, was not approved until 2006. You may ask, why? We are asking the same questions. Incidentally, DTSC is currently being investigated.
CLICK ON ABOVE IMAGES TO ENLARGE
But again, we have Phil Pitchard, Intergovernmental and Communications Officer for the City of Riverside, contacting Kacey Montoya attempting to discredit and slander the Moreno’s. They had recently been told by a former prior high profile executive within the City of Riverside, that the effort to remove them from there place of business was instigated by former Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham, as allegedly stated, “a personal vendetta.” Mrs. Graham, who is known to work better horizontally, as opposed to vertically some city insiders have stated. This contradicts the City of Riversides moniker as a business friendly city. What is more remarkable, we found more small business owners have stated the same, but were afraid to openly state it for fear of retaliation. What is that all about? What it is about, is how the City of Riverside does business, and it’s not pretty.
JORGE MORENO, DTSC PHIL PITCHFORD, CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Incidentally, Phil Pitchard previously worked for the Press Enterprise of which very little, obviously, has been reported with reference to the AG Park issue, although many residents surrounding this development have claimed illness and have reported family deaths to unusual circumstances. Was Pritchard given the job by the city in order to covering up a really big stories such as AG Park? Is he a journalist or a snake? Cause we are snake trainers. As his email indicates, his attempts to silence the message and slander the messenger. I checked, Jorge Moreno is not related, thank god… PR person for DTSC who was quick to defend his department of any wrong doing. Our suggestion is that the City of Riverside hire Jay Carney… at least he is more entertaining and can be part of a more believable spin.
Jay Carney had the art of words, and could have ‘splained just about any alleged malfeasance or bad press coming from the White House..
In one NBC investigation first reported February 2, 2013, “People are getting sick, people are dying and community members are crying out.” said one DTSC source. “We’re not doing near enough; in fact, we are allowing it to happen.” A second DTSC source stated, that the “expectation the public has of being protected is not being served.” The hazardous waste tracking system seems to be problematic. The investigative unit analyzed the most recent 13 years of hazardous waste tracking system data and found that 44 percent of the entries detailing types of hazardous waste were listed as blank, unknown or invalid. It was found that part of the problem could be the DTSC staff itself. A state audit by the California Department of Human Resources found that 59 percent of employees in the DTSC department were just not qualified to hold the positions they held. There is simply no doubt that there are problems within the DTSC, and for the City of Riverside to claim a clean bill of health is debatable at the very least.
ACCORDINGLY, TMC JUST LEARNED THAT FORMER AND FIRED CITY ATTORNEY CHRISTINA TALLEY WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY PAYING ATTENTION ON THE DAIS! While it was noted by interim City Manager Lee McDougal at the Goeske Center, the Friday Morning club was told she had two phones, she would be texting someone on one and playing a “game” on the other. This may answer the question as to why she appeared at times, surprised, as a deer caught in the headlights. I as the CEO of the City of Riverside and employer would ask my council to ask for a part refund from Best, Best & Krieger for her lack of duties, as well as not representing the best interest of the taxpayers. The City of Riverside hired the controversial law firm Best, Best & Krieger, who gave us one of their historically problematic attorneys, Christina Talley.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
RIVERSIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS SIGN A COMPLAINT TO REMOVE THE LAW LICENSE OF FORMER RIVERSIDE DEPUTY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING. In what appears to be a conspiratorial closed door retaliatory move, certain council member signed off on a bar complaint against former deputy attorney Sterling, in what appears to a retaliatory move to silence her public speaking. Sterling was fired for reporting fraud under former City Attorney Gregory Priamos. As a result of the bar investigation their complaint was unfounded. This was an attempt Councilman Steve Adams (who was also serving as Mayor Pro Tem at the time), Councilman Andy Melendrez, Councilman Chris MacArthur and new Councilman Jim Perry. Councilman Mike Soubirous and Paul Davis refused to part of this underhanded activity and refused to sign the document. What Adams didn’t know would happen, was that it open many closed session meetings to be made public. This is going to definitely change the perspective of these councilmen when they listen to tapes that were never meant to be made public.
The disgusting part was that three of the five Temecula City Council had some connection to Rancon Real Estate, a development they needed to vote on.
The hotel’s owners are represented by an agent with Rancon Real Estate Corp. According to Thorson, Rancon Real Estate’s chief executive officer is Dan Stephenson, who also founded the Rancon Group, a Murrieta-based collection of development-related companies of which Comerchero is president and CEO.
Stephenson has been the top donor to all five council member’s political campaigns, and Roberts’ son is a Rancon Real Estate agent, although he is not the listed agent for the hotel.
Naggar and Washington are investors in limited liability companies managed by Stephenson, according to Thorson’s report. Naggar is also a real estate consultant to several of those companies.
The question is if we the public “own it.” Why must we waste our profits in advertisements? After all Riverside Public Utilities only serves the public. I believe this wasteful advertisement money should be returned to the taxpayer, as well, as any other monies funneled into other creative financing accounts.
RUMOR MILL UPDATE ON FORMER RIVERSIDE UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF RESOURCES, AND NOW “RETIRED” PRIVATE CONSULTANT GARY NOLFF: The word around the grapevine is that the controversy that ensued after the exposure of Nolff’s $200/hr consulting contract with Riverside Public Utilities, is the mysterious Mr. Nolff is now working for Best Best & Krieger, who is working for Riverside Public Utilities. It is now our premise that in order for Nolff to distance himself from the Reiko Kerr controversy, the City of Riverside strategically asked BB&K to hire him. Therefore, taxpayers monies are now being funneled through the no contract BB&K arrangement in order to pay Nolff’s consulting fees. Again, residents are silently asking the question to TMC, for obvious fear of retaliation, what the heck’s going on here? To many in the community these kind of relationships bear an uncanny resemblance to what some might call a “criminal organization.” Again, don’t shoot the messenger BB&K: you made the incestuous bed you lie in.
We’ve heard rumblings from various online PE commenters complaining that their comments were blocked/edited/removed. Freedom of speech does not seem to claim precedence over getting across, “the agenda,” on the Press Enterprise comment section. For one thing, TMC has been blocked… and many in the community have said the same. So what is up Press Enterprise, are you the Fourth Branch of Government, or only Pravda? We made a call months back and asked the PE if there was any reason that we, TMC, would be blocked from commenting. They answered that there was no reason they felt we should be blocked, and there system as they saw it, showed that we were not blocked. Well TMC did a test this week regarding one of their editorials: Innovation Changes the Climate Change.
Then we signed off, and voila! The comment disappears. Now you see it, now you don’t! PE readers have noticed the low amount of commenters, and less of those who can criticize. Is this the new PE? To control the message? We welcome your comments, especially the PE. Even though we felt that the PE didn’t tell us the truth, or just wasn’t privy to understand the real issues at hand, we felt this was important enough to know where the PE stands. Is there an obligation to the public, or is it now just to an elite few?
THIRTYMILES BANNED FROM COMMENTING ON THE PRESS ENTERPRISE..THE CLAIM IS THAT THEY ARE CONNECTING PEOPLE TO THEIR COMMUNITY?…BUT ARE THEY REALLY?
Evidently we did one of these, we don’t know which, but it could be one or just all of them.
CAN NEWLY CHRISTENED RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FIND SOLACE IN THOSE WHO DIDN’T SUPPORT HIM? WILL THESE NEW ASSOCIATIONS CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL CAMPAIGN OATH TO THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE? The question to District Attorney Mike Hestrin is why is he embracing those that didn’t support him? Such as Senator Jeff Stone, (Mr. Law Enforcement Impersonator), Sheriff Stan Stiff Sniff, Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, Supervisor John Tavaglione, Supervisor John Benoit and of course, who many are stating is the, “ringleader,” Supervisor Marion Ashley..
How many from this cast of characters are embedded in land deals throughout the County of Riverside? And who are their cohorts, who support their business dealings. The real question is, “Will Hestrin unveil the scam of developing properties through the mechanism known as newly incorporated cities?” That is: taking properties from their owners via code enforcement and newly voted upon resolutions, which then can be exploited at their own discretion?
WILL NEW CITY ATTORNEY GARY GEUSS BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE TRASH LEFT BEHIND BY FORMER CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS? WILL HE BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT SMILE ON HIS FACE FOR LONG?
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 ONETWO 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 IMAGES TO VIEW DOCUMENTS SENT TO “CLETS” EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
TMC and the public has recently learned of city of Riverside secret investigative teams, which included several city of Riverside departments including Human Resources and Police, which were organized under the auspices of monitoring, “potentially dangerous,” city employees. In another in a long line of Riverside coinkydinks, it just so happens that many of these employees were also known whisteblowers within the City at the time they were put under surveillance. Employees whose only crime was to report fraud within the city of Riverside were subjected to background checks using confidential law enforcement sources, defamed, followed, and threatened – in one incident, threatened with their lives.
It has long been common knowledge that the city has been a hostile place to work if you aren’t ethically-challenged and report wrongdoing. What we’re beginning to understand now is the extent that the city was/is willing to go to use public resources in order to cover-up its shameful acts. The courageous few, who stuck their necks out to protect the taxpayers and ratepayers of Riverside, had their lives turned upside down by the municipal mafia, under the direction/protection of former Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos.
Who amongst the other City insiders were the other players in this game of deceit? Further, was the law enforcement telecommunication system known as CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) used as a tool for defamation/retaliation by former Human Resources Director Rhonda Strout, current Human Resource Director Brenda Diederichs, and other department heads, thus violating these employees rights to privacy? How about the coup d’état, the Chief of Police, Sergio Diaz: how was he involved because the CLETS system is solely a law enforcement tool?
This secret organization was unbeknownst to even the Human Resource Board, who supposedly reviews HR policies. They demanded to know more about it. It was unbeknownst to the Community Police Review Commission, who supposedly reviews police policies. It was also unbeknownst to certain City Council members, who supposedly know things none of the above-mentioned boards/commissions do. Hold onto your hats, because we get the feeling this story will be explosive.
There exists a secret panel, which is being financed by the taxpayer, and is under the guidance of a former Secret Service agent consultant, that investigates whistleblower employees within the city of Riverside in an attempt to intimidate and discredit them? Why wasn’t it utilized to investigate Councilman Chris MacArthur’s legislative aide Chuck Condor? He allegedly pulled a knife and threatened another Council Field Representative Mark Earley, who was Mayor Bailiey’s aide when he was Councilman? This would appear to be a valid threat occurrence, which should be subjected to an evaluation by a threat assessment team. That did not occur of course, as equal application of the rules is optional in the ole River City.
Above we see Diaz, Diederichs, Adams, Gardner, Melendrez, MacArthur and Perry & Bailey: are these members of the alleged shadow government team that does not exist to anyone’s knowledge, but yet does?
RIVERSIDE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENT (03.17.2015) HAD MUCH TO SAY ON THIS SUBJECT, WITH THE MAYOR INTERVENING AT ONE POINT TO SUPPORT AN ENTITY THAT EVIDENTLY NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT…BUT THE MAYOR SEEMINGLY BURPED AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT? AN INADVERTENT RECOGNITION OF A SHADOW ORGANIZATION THAT OTHERS ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AS WELL AS THE CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCE BOARD WERE NEVER AWARE OF?
RIVERSIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS SIGN A COMPLAINT TO REMOVE THE LAW LICENSE OF FORMER RIVERSIDE DEPUTY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING. In what appears to be another conspiratorial closed door retaliatory move, certain council members – Adams, Melendrez, Gardner, Perry, and MacArthur – signed off on making a bar complaint against former deputy attorney Sterling, in what appears to a retaliatory move to silence her public speaking. Sterling was fired for reporting fraud under former City Attorney Gregory Priamos. The bar investigated the complaint and determined it to be unfounded. Too bad, so sad.
What ringleader Adams didn’t know would happen by doing so, was that it opened many closed session meetings to be made available to the public. This is going to definitely change the perspective of these councilmen when they find out we’ve had a chance to listen to tapes that were never meant to be made public.
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 ONETWO 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
A two part series of articles has been written regarding Pasadena’s Public Works Director Siobhan Foster and City Manager Michael Beck with relation to their part with the City of Riverside featuring former fired Resource Principle Analyst Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside Business Owner who was retaliated by a City of Riverside Executive and Taxpayer Advocate Vivian Moreno, former fired Riverside Contracts Administer for Public Works Sean Gill, former fired Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling and retired Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination Scott Simpson.
The people of Pasadena are lucky they have a newspaper that is covering this information. The owner of the Riverside paper, the Press Enterprise, retired, and it was sold to a Texas corporation that then gutted its staff’s ability to do this kind of investigative reporting. It has since then changed hands again. Meanwhile, Michael Beck was hired as City Manager by the City of Riverside WITHOUT ANY SEARCH FOR, OR INTERVIEW OF OTHER CANDIDATES. I know; I was there objecting to this hire. Why was Beck hired without any search for candidates? I think it’s because our then-Mayor, Ron Loveridge, knew Beck would participate in covering up what already had been taking place for years, under the “leadership’ of the previous City Manager, Brad Hudson, who, with Loveridge, had concocted a redevelopment scheme, the so-called “Riverside Renaissance,” that has left local citizens forced to overpay utility bills, sewer charges, and more, and stripped local services so that, for example, the annual expenditure on public libraries is only 25 cents per citizen per year. (I think Pasadena was spending at least $4 a year on library services). Beck had worked at the University of California at Riverside, where our multi-term Mayor, Ron Loveridge, was continuing to accrue pension credits while on repeated annual leaves to serve six four-year terms as the City’s Mayor. (This means Loveridge is getting pensions from both the UC system AND from the City of Riverside; a recent salary poll showed that some unnamed associate professor at UCR is making $680,000 annually, and I bet that it’s Loveridge.) So Loveridge knew Beck before extolling his virtues as a City Manager — an accolade Beck received despite his lack of ANY experience as a city manager. I hope this newspaper continues to dig deep into this story! – LETITIA PEPPER, former Attorney for Best, Best & Krieger.
Beck started out without the proper credentials to be a city manager, but Mayor Loveridge brought him from UCR to pull off the Renaissance scheme. Although Beck is not smart enough to pull this scheme off himself he had help. We also fired good management so the scheme could be pulled off. Check with the purchasing manager, did they replace him/her. Did someone alert management and get fired? This is a trick Beck learned in Riverside. Fire Beck!!! Check not only your interfund/interagency loans but also your bond proceeds. City council need to call the state controller to do an audit. Do not rely on outside auditors they can be bought and sold. Beck is no good, he will only try to hide the larger problems. Someone needs to ask Beck why he was in the City of Riverside, city hall about 3 months ago, saw him in the elevator. – DVONNE PITRUZZELLO, former candidate for Riverside Mayor & Council
And why, people should ask, did Beck fire Green and Foster “without cause”? Why weren’t they fired FOR cause — for failing to institute, and then follow, procedures designed to prevent the theft of at least $6.4 million? It looks like Beck is actually TRYING to protect them. He’s probably hoping that the average person will think that by firing them without cause, at least Beck is punishing them.
Under these circumstances, describing their departure as being “without cause” is actually a reward, compared to what should be happening.
So who REALLY knew WHAT was going on with that embezzlement — and WHERE did the money go, and WHO got a share of it? Will BECK’s name figure as an answer to any of these questions? Let’s hope there is an in-depth investigation and prosecution in the works.
I can’t believe the incredible timing of this article. Toward the end of the article, Jason Hunter, a former City of Riverside employee fired for knowing too much and not keeping quiet, talks about how the City of Riverside’s top officials worked to silence public discussion.
One of the ways to do that was that the City Council voted to take away the public’s right to take things off the Consent Calendar so that they were available for public discussion, and how then a small group — the Mayor, Mayor Pro tem, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk — would decide what items went on the Consent Calendar.
In fact, individual Council members were denied the right to put anything on the Discussion or Consent Calendar at all, thus depriving their constituents of any voice as to issues that needed to be discussed.
I just recently stumbled onto the fact that this method of controlling public discussion is a violation of the Ralph M Brown Act. On January 16, 2015, I sent the Riverside Mayor and City Council a letter demanding that they stop violating the Ralph M. Brown Act and return to the former — and legal — method by which members of the public may object at any City Council meeting to any item being placed on the consent calendar, which then puts in on the Discussion Calendar for a full, public discussion and debate about its merits.
I am still awaiting a response, but if the City fails to correct this glaring, and meaningfully timed violation of law, there is a group of citizens ready to retain my legal services to sue the it.
Notably, the motion to take away this public right was made by Riverside City Council Member Dom Betro and seconded by Council Member Steve Adams as the “Riverside Renaissance” shell game was about to heat up. Steve Adams has been a HUGE proponent of developing the Ag Park land (mentioned in the second article in this series)and has continued to insist that there are no toxic chemicals there. I believe that Steve Adams was a primary a proponent of using sewer funds to build the infamous “road to nowhere” — a road built with city money leading directly to land that Cox, the developer mentioned in part two of this story, was planning to develop. – LETITIA PEPPER, former Attorney for Best, Best & Krieger.
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 ONETWO 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
What should be brought to the forefront is that Liebert Cassidy Whitmore is actually representing Councilman Paul Davis in the current case of Raychele Sterling vs. City of Riverside et al. Liebert Cassidy Whitemore is also the law firm that is doing the investigation for the City of Riverside against, of course, Councilman Paul Davis. So the firm is defending him but at the same time crucifying him and sticking the knife into him! Those in Riverside who keep up with the politics see this time and time again. Those in Riverside who are sleep, need to wake up and see what is happening in your City.
Additionally, I will be filing a bar complaint against you and your firm for violations of conflicts of interest rules, since your firm is my direct representation in the active case Sterling v City of Riverside et al. I have never waived my conflict rights in this case and neither can the council. Regards,
Paul Davis
Council Member –
This according to Councilman Paul Davis’s personal statement as indicated below, under “Full Davis Personal Statement on this Investigation”.
The letter is directed toward Mark Mayerhoff, which Davis states he is “shocked” that his firm has released an incomplete investigation, as a result of the following:
In the letter Attorney Mark Mayerhoff states the Investigation that will be release to Press Enterprise reporter Alicia Robinson will be redacted (to obscure or remove from a document prior to publication or release). Of course we asked the question of Why? Especially in the name of transparency. Mayerhoff also states that he attached an unredacted copy of the investigation to Councilman Davis. We have the unredacted investigation as follows, all 417 pages. Alicia, if you need the full unredacted copy just download from our site!
These issues that Soubirous and I have been charged with is misappropriations of Public Funds for Political Gain and it is about exacting retaliation for our not being the “Go along to get along” guys, like many of the rest. The funds issue will be handled in another venue, as Adams and Bailey appropriated the funds without authority of the council. Evidence will be produced to prove this up. What happened is Barber files the complaint then funds the investigation under his 50K expense authority and they split up the contracts into four separate ones to equate to $200k authorization.
Interestingly enough the hired gun law firm and investigator failed to insert my interview “Eratta”, correction sheet into the investigation materials and even failed to incorporate the right statements in to Gumpart’s statements, where I said “Surely Not” and the stenographer records “Sure”. Gumport does this so that he can make a point in his opinion on his questions as to the effect of my statements on CM Barber being able to do his job. However, I have attached is separately.
More to come.
Paul Davis
Councilmember – Ward 4
City of Riverside
And of course it is not over yet! There is “MORE TO COME” according to Councilman Paul Davis! We will sit back and wait because it will be sooner than you think. Paul Davis’s Interview “Eratta” is as follows:
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.
What is now remarkable is the fact that Scotty is creating more liability as what appears to be personality problems at the expense of the taxpayer! It is now becoming evident he doesn’t care about the residents of Riverside, if not, only for himself. Will Scotty sue the City of Riverside? Or I should say, the taxpayer because of his perception of in house politics? Remember Scotty is a remnant of the Hudson legacy; he, Brad Hudson was convicted of credit card fraud. But our current Mayor Rusty Bailey considers him a moral compass, go figure..
Some things never change as this is common in Riverside. Brad Hudson ran the city and the Council as the Mayor was just a figure head madding back room deals, traveling, giving speeches and breaking a tie vote. Well a city attorney made the law up as he went but talked his way out. As the Mayor left and the hopes of an honest Mayor we saw a candidate who had powerful friends of the former Mayor. yes false fliers were sent out but the candidate got caught and apologized, using illegal Fed agent license plates and more corruption, as he was the choice of the people. To start his term he made national news by having a citizen arrested for speaking over 3 minutes, a lawyer arrested for clapping and big money was made with the help of the city Attorney in red lining homes for illegal foreclosure. People were in place to defend and protect the criminal acts. Brad Hudson skipped out along with the Deputy Attorney after illegally buying Glock Hand guns as the Feds closed in but the council did nothing. A replacement who would follow orders was needed and the Code Enforcement Director was picked. Things went for bad to worse as all violations by the council insiders were ignored but the firing of a Deputy attorney who reported illegal action was done as Mrs. Sterling was out. HR answered to Hudson and that was well known. Loveridge was funny as his old time lies did not work on a new generation. Just think Adams history of assaulting his girl friend, messing in a police promotion and as a veteran police officer taking illegal plates still got elected to council again and now running for Congress. Wow we have enough corrupt Congressmen in DC but at lease Riverside has an Honest Congressman in Mark. Well Davis and Mike know their honesty and loyalty to their Wards is not what the Bailey team wants. Most people know a misdemeanor is a violation that gets you jail time and a fine. But it seems Priamos missed that class in law school. Mike charged with hear say that failed even paying to LA lawyers 200,000 dollars which a law student would know. Then Davis with documents as evidence and wow the filing of complaints done wrong but no problem as even the Brown Act was violated twice and no due process in either case. Conflict of interest even paid Attorneys were clue less. The Mayor is spending allot to get two council out in the next election and put Bailey team members in their seats. What is clear is Riverside no longer wants citizens to elect their representatives but will let the Mayor do it. The way things are going Bailey wont need an election to continue as Mayor he will appoint himself. Scott Barber is a good worker and did a great job giving out tickets in Code Enforcement rather legal or illegal and really wanted the city managers job to do as he was told. Anyone who lives in the city of Riverside knows how things are done and employees/appointees take orders and follow them. I remember when we were asked for bond for the Library to help the children well after the money was given oops the council and mayor used it for something else only to come back again to ask for money for the Library. Using citizens and wasting money while making back room deals will continue until the voters clean out the corrupt elected officials and the Bailey Team. The Feds and the State are likely to come in and then the blame game but it will be great to see Brad Hudson and Greg Priamos finally answer to their crimes over the years. – AirJackie, Commenter to TMC
WATER CONSERVATION: THE FAUX DROUGHT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. We don’t have a drought in the City of Riverside, but it seems the City will create one in order take advantage of fines and maintain the current water rates. The clincher is that the City passed an ordinance to comply with State Law. They didn’t have to because we are exempt because we own our water supply. We as a City are also under a court order, if we don’t use the water we lose it! Since we own our own water in no position to declare a water shortage! Large educational institutions such as RCC and UCR are exempt.
This is how contradictary this ordinance is, if you are a recipient of Gage Canal water, there are no restrictions, you can use as much as appropriated yearly to you depending on your shares. That means you can run the water into the street if you want. Of course, I’m not advocating that, but the point is that we have a unfair application of the laws, maybe because the City can always depend on squeezing a little more from the residents. The City didn’t have to pass the ordinance, but they did, they did because there is a monetary MO behind it. Education institutions such as UCR and RCC are exempt. One of the absolute benefits of living in Riverside is ownership of water. You can maintain you pool and jacuzzi as long as you don’t “overfill.” Did you get that one? Who overfills their pool? The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells. There is plenty of water. This is focused on an income source, and that income source is us. This political move also seems another way that the City can put one neighbor against the other by the snitch call to code enforcement, the other police force. It’s time to see what is occurring in the City of Riverside and remove your Councilperson. In my ward it is Councilman Mike Gardner.
Remember, approximately 20% of our water is sold to Western Municipal. Are we to conserve more water so that the City can sell more off to other communities for a higher profit. Cite the citizens on water violations to increase profits. Then they will then ask us to use less water then they will raise water rates to increase profits. You will use less and pay more. Then they will manipulate the tier pricing seasonally or at will to increase even more profits. The more money in the water fund, the more that 11.5% water transfer to the General Fund will have.
Scott Simpson was former Chief of Enforcement for the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, and also worked for the Department of Food and Agriculture in their Environmental Hazards Assessment Program specializing in ground water contamination:
Interesting yet, manipulating the data. They first mentioned that ground water levels have dropped due to increased use/demand from consumers but, the graph displays only gw available in acre feet. The data that should have been shown in the graph in order to keep consistent with the written conversation is depth to ground water in the wells (1934-today). They have the data. The graph displays how much water was available every 2 yrs from 1934 on. This is the amount legally available to harvest annually. It is close to displaying how much water(rainfall) went into the basin each season. 1960-64 was the driest period on record but historical references are available of other dry and wet periods back to the early 1800’s. What the graph really shows is that Riverside takes about 10% of the annual harvest of water supplied by normal rainfall. The other water agencies share in the other 90%. The San Bernardino Water Basin holds about 5 Million acre feet of water. Only about a million acre feet are available to the existing wells. So about 4 millions acre feet remains to be tapped by deeper wells.
Of course in the current dry spell (notice there were several dry and wet periods 10 yrs apart) the available gw has decreased some due to demand but mostly due to low rainfall in the local mountains. Look at the wet years; almost instant recharge of the gw basin occurs as soon as we get the first normal or above normal rainfall. This shows the amount available to the various water harvesters is the amount of water that recharges the basin each year or about 500,000 acre feet on average. (this is detailed in the Court settlement order of 1980 settling the big water rights lawsuit filed in 1964.) There is plenty of water available in the gw basin. The Court has limited access to most of it.
Currently, Riverside uses about 84,000 acre feet of gw per year. Half or 44,000 acre feet is harvested from the San Bernardino Basin. The other 40,000 comes mostly from the North Riverside Basin from a well field near the soccer complex and old dead golf course. The North Riverside Basin is geologically and hydraulically connected to the San Bernardino Basin. Ground water flows from the San Bernardino Basin into the North Riverside Basin continuously via a narrow under ground channel beneath the Santa Ana River in Colton.
Now, lets get back to water rights. A Water Right is a legal claim to a fixed amount of water harvested annually from a defined source such as, a river. Your claim can be legally challenged at any time by another water harvester from the same water source. There are pre-1914 water rights and post-1914 water rights. The difference is the date of first lawful claim to the water. Post-1914 water rights claims are granted, processed, regulated and disputed through or by the Calif. Dept. of Water Resources. This legal status encompasses all of the state’s water resources unused or in its natural state post-1914 water law. This is about 62% of the states total water resources during average rainfall periods. The UlS. Constitution prohibits congress from passing retroactive law so, we get old law still in effect for many and the new law applying only to those engaging in the regulated activity as of the date of new law. Two systems of legal claims to water co-existing at the same time.
The other pre-1914 water sources comprising 38% of the states water resources pre-existed the 1914 change in state law toward state regulation of water harvesting and the creation of the Dept. of Water Resources. So if you held a legal water right prior to 1914 it was formed under old law dating back to the founding of the state circa 1849 and before John North et al started up the land development scheme (the Southern California Colony Assn) that became the city of Riverside circa 1885.
From 1850-1914 the primary concern of Californians and incoming settlers was the availability of water and the price! People were experiencing the tyranny of corporate monopolies with the railroad. Railroads arbitrarily raised freight prices after settlers moved in. Cheep rates to draw in settlers and raise them later to extract profits from them when they financially can’t leave. The basic lack of competition in a natural monopoly like a railroad sucked the money out of the local farmers. It was feared that the same monopolistic behavior would (and was) occur with water providers. The state legislature of 1850-1905 was very serious about curbing monopolistic water providers. 1852 saw the first laws regulating the formation of water companies and pricing. Our state Senator of the day, John Satterwaite, authored several laws including one passed in 1862, the Satterwaite Act or Civil Code 552. John North incorporated the So. Calif. Colony Assn. under this law to make profits from the sale of land with a guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity. In part it says, “The corporation is formed to build a water distribution (canal) system to make the land livable and profitable. The corporation making its’ profits from the sale of the land and the water sold at cost.”
This is further elaborated on in Superior Court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court decisions leading to Cal. Supreme, Price v. the Riverside Land & Irrigation Co., 1880. Where the law and lower court rulings were placed in context justifying the Supreme Courts decision. In part saying, ” The corporation having formed under the law of 1862 (civil code 552) may not make profits from the sale and delivery of water. The water belongs to the land and is fixed to it permenently. The price set for delivery of water is based only upon the cost of operating and maintaining the canal, pipes, pumps or other infrastructure annually, Water is not sold as a comodity the lawful price to only recover the cost of providing water to the land.” Including that this was a contractual obligation of the original sale of Colony land(s) to settlers. So, the So. Calif. Colony Assn. contractually sold parcels of land with the advertised and promissed guarantee of water delivery in perpetuity to the land, a contractual obligation that continues forever to pass with the land ownership and successive owners of the water company including a future municipality. This is published case law stating that state water law of the time is still in effect and contractural obligation both pass to successive owners. The water right is fixed to the land receiving water permanently and cannot be altered. State constitutional law upholding and the U.S. Constitution, fourteenth amendment protection of lawful contracts upholding. Land owners served by the city of Riverside water dept. as successor owner of the Riverside land &Irrigation Co. cannot be denied the water they have always received in the same amount and quality as originally delivered to the land and in perpetuity at not more than the cost to deliver the water.
So we are in a period of drought. The law and the Cal. Sup. 1880 says, “The (city of Riverside) water company must declare a water supply emergency to deviate from it otherwise lawful supplying of water to the land, in order to initiate any form of reducing water supply or consumption during the emergency period. It must also stop connecting new land/customers to the distribution system until the emergency is canceled.”
Hence, Riverside cannot charge us fees for conservation programs because that is not a cost of operating and maintaining the infrastructure/service. Riverside cannot do anything other than request Volunteer water conservation. Riverside cannot raise prices to force consumers to use less water. Riverside cannot use tiered punitive pricing to force less water consumption. You have a lawful right to water in the same amount as was originally delivered to your land. My parcel was originally planted in citrus pre-1890 and irrigated with about 8 acre feet of water per acre, the water also being of drinking water quality and used to supply the house. So my water allotment for our .84 acre parcel is about 6 acre feet of water per year. After that, Riverside can require conservation and maybe raise prices.
RUSTY’S RED TROLLEY! DOES HE THINK IT CAN? MEETING PLANNED FOR JULY 30ST, 2014 TO EXAMIN THE FEASABILITY STUDY! The City of Riverside received a Cal Trans Grant of $237,000.00 to do a feasibility study, and you better believe with this money the focus is on a reason to have it!
CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE
TMC will have a rebuttle of the pro’s and con’s of a trolley system in the City of Riverside, and will be able to do it for no cost to the taxpayer!
CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW DETAILS OF THE MEETING
TROLLEY UPDATE: TMC WAS TOLD THAT AT THE MEETING, THE TABLES HAD NAME CARDS OF ALL THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR WITH THE TROLLEY STUDY PACKETS. NOT ONE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL SHOWED, EVEN THE MAYOR DIDN’T SHOW AND IT’S HIS PROJECT! IT APPEARS ANOTHER $237K IN STATE GRANT MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN..
THE RIVERSIDE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE UPCOMING SPECIAL AUDIT OF THE SEWER FUNDS. THIS WILL BE THIS TUESDAY JULY 29TH AT 6:00PM IN THE MAYOR’S CEREMONIAL ROOM ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY NEIL OKAZAKI LEAVES CITY OF RIVERSIDE. Sources have said that Neil Okazaki would be leaving his position, possible going to the County. This occurred the day of the Soubirious hearing. Was this hearing the turning point for Okazaki? Weeks before, City Attorney Greg Priamos said he was leaving for a position with the County as well. What seems evident is that no one wants to go down with the ship!
SORRY EVERYBODY! WE STILL HAVE MORE ON COUNCILMAN SOUBIROUS’S INVESTIGATION THAT WILL BE A COMPLETE SHOCKER! STAY TUNED FOR MORE AS RIVER CITY TURNS!
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 ONETWO 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
According to Vivian Moreno, her account and comment on this situation are as follows:
Does the misuse of assett forfeiture funds turn cops into robbers? Equitable Shared Funds (Asset Forfeiture Funds) shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes. Here are some of the “ALMOST NOTHING” things that were spent. Baker to Vegas Run-tennis shoes,gear & hotel stay. Police Chief Leach paid $35K to his wife Connie. Birthday cake and candles. Police Chief Leach & Gonzales spent almost $500 a night each at the Ritz Carlton, Vicino goes golfing. Police Chief Leach took Grover Trask to lunch with these funds, then the City of Riverside hired Grover to defend Leach. I bet Grover didn’t know leach was using Asset Forfeiture Funds to pay for his lunch. Or the $15,000 on Fitness Equipment, $2,084.40 on Small Kitchen Appliances or the $35,000 to former Police Chief Russ Leach’s wife Connie Leach’s Multi Cultural Youth Festival? Assistant Finance Director for the City of Riverside tried to explain it to Dvonne Pitruzzello, but again the DOJ has precise criteria for the use of asset forfeiture funds. One thing is certain, you cannot transfer Federal Police Asset Forfeiture monies to the General Fund.
Asset Forfeiture Guide:Seeks to assist state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the program by clarifying the directives they must follow to obtain and use equitably shared funds. The goal is to make the process as clear as possible so that local communities and the nation can thrive from reduced crime and from quality law enforcement. Were suppose to use bad guy’s monies against bad guy’s. Who’s the bad guys in Riverside?
Equitably Shared Funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only. What does Tennis Shoes, Lunches, Connie Leach and Golf have to do with Law enforcement? I trust Aquino’s account of the situation than the City’s. She understands the program even better than the Press Enterprise.
Then you have to ask the question, “Did the Chief Diaz cancel the current December “Chief’s advisory Board Meeting” because they could no longer use Police Asset Forfeiture funds to pay for the dinner provided to the Board Members?” What fund will they use now and will there be a January meeting with no food? I just have one thing to say to the CHIEF… POT LUCK!
City Manager Scott Barber Ooops, Sorry, City Manager Scott Barber
The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about. The new investigation is all about Police Asset Forfeiture expenditures. The way these funds are spent are in question. The criteria for spending is set by the Department of Justice. According to the Press Enterprise, the PE themselves did their own investigation and found in a review of asset forfeiture spending by RPD, they concluded they turned up almost nothing that appeared questionable. Really now PE? Running shoes, Las Vegas to Baker Run, Connie Leach salary not questionable? What the PE doesn’t understand is that items which appear as nothing can consequentionally be a basis for losing the whole assett forfeiture program in Riverside.
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T! IS THIS WHAT THE TAXPAYER SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE NEW INVESTIGATION?
This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche Grossberg Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.
ROUND THREE APPEAL FOR FORMER AND FIRED CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER
In a letter, appellant Jason Hunter, former City of Riverside employee, questioned the decision of the Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body made on his behalf. TMC recently wrote about this in this December 2013 article. Jason Hunter was the City of Riverside’s Principal Resource Analyst, in other words his was head of Wholesale Energy Marketing and Trading. Hunter’s recent letter is as follows:
Appeal by Jason E. Hunter of Code of Ethics Adjudicating Body Decision of Code of Ethics and Conduct Complaint against the Human Resources Board
In accordance with the City of Riverside Resolution No. 22461-Code of Ethics and Conduct -the following shall serve as a formal appeal of the Adjudicating Body’s decision regarding the above-referenced ethics complaint, filed September 9,2013, and heard on November 15, 2013, and December13, 2013. It is appellant’s contention that the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Body weremade in clear error and abuse of discretion.
As to the first cause, Creating Trust of Local Government:
The Adjudicating Body (“AB”) ignored the fact that the members of the Human Resources Board (“HRB”), serving as a quasi-judicial panel, had a serious obligation to appellant to understand the basic tenets of local, State, and U.S. law regarding due process and disciplinary proceeding procedures. The AB found that the HRB was unprepared for this hearing, and delegated its responsibilities to an all-too-ready-to-take-charge City Attorney, but instead placed this blame on city staff. While appellant agrees there is significant fault on behalf of staff, he believes the HRB also had a fiduciary duty to him to make sure he was afforded a fair hearing by an impartial tribune. It is clear from the videotape of the disciplinary hearing that the appellant believed there were clear violations of his rights taking place, and yet these are never even minutely addressed by the HRB.
The Adjudicating Body did not consider the fact that all post-hearing attempts to cure the defects presented to the HRB after the May 13, 2013, hearing, including his Motion for Reconsideration of June3, 2013; letter to HRB Chairman Powell of May 16, 2013; and additional pleadings at subsequent HRB open hearings were simply ignored. The AB also chose to ignore Section 804 of the City Charter stating that Boards must meet monthly, so that the public has an adequate opportunity to voice its concerns regarding city operations.
As to the second cause, Making Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions:
The Adjudicating Body admits the City Attorney took over the meeting at times. The Adjudicating Body recognizes the HRB was not prepared for the disciplinary hearing. Given these two admissions, how can the HRB have made fair, unbiased decisions?
As to the third cause, Treating Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner:
The AB admits the HRB and city were remiss in providing transparent and easily comprehended protocols, rules, and outline in a timely fashion to the appellant. The AB seemed to ignore that the advocating Deputy City Attorney seemed well prepared for his disciplinary hearing in terms of time limits the appellant was ignorant to. Hence, the City Attorney’s office seemed to receive preferential treatment in preparation for the disciplinary hearing.
The AB admits procedural defects most likely happened during the course of the disciplinary hearing, but does believe the HRB had a responsible to at least slow down the proceedings to investigate the appellant’s claims of such. Appellant finds this logic flawed.
As to the fourth cause, Ensuring that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside:
The Deputy City Attorney misled the AB at the December hearing by stating the HRB does not have the power to compel testimony nor evidence. This statement is a half-truth, nor was this assertion what appellant stated for the record at his disciplinary hearing. City Charter section 804 grants the HRB the option of requesting such power from the City Council, as would have been appropriate in an adversarial proceeding of substantial concern such as appellant’s demotion and termination under circumstances of alleged retaliation and harassment.
As far as protecting the best interests ofthe City of Riverside, the appellant leaves to the City Council to decide whether allowing a contested disciplinary hearing to spiral into Superior Court and the District Attorney’s office was good judgment.
As to the fifth cause, Ensuring that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of Their Duties:
The AB acknowledges the HRB was unprepared for the disciplinary hearing, and delegated decision making to the City Attorney’s office in light of their willful ignorance. However, the AB seems to find city staff at blame. Appellant argues once again that the HRB was cognizant of the significance of this disciplinary hearing and chose to willfully come unprepared to conduct this quasi-judicial session.
Appellant in fact believes the rules, protocols, and outline for his disciplinary hearing were not even written by the HRB, which should have been their responsibility to deliberate publicly. Hence, the HRB allowed themselves to be beholden to a biased City Attorney’s office in how it was to conduct his disciplinary hearing.
Relief Sought:
In light of the misrepresentations and omissions made by the city staff, as well as the Adjudicating Body’s refusal to discuss or vote upon appellant’s timely objections made prior to the November 15, 2013, hearing, and intransigence in accepting additional evidence at the December 13, 2013, some of which was requesting by the Adjudicating Body itself on November 15, 2013, the Adjudicating Body was unable to make an educated decision based upon complete information, including newly discovered evidence.
Appellant now respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Adjudicating Body, and find that Human Resources Board members Norman Powell, Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew, and Patricia Eibs did violate the Code of Ethics and Conduct in failing to:
1. Create Trust of Local Government
2. Make Unbiased, Fair, and Honest Decisions
3. Treat Everyone with Respect and in a Just and Fair Manner
4. Ensure that all Public Decisions are Well Informed, Independent, and in the Best Interests of the City of Riverside
5. Ensure that All Officials are Prepared for the Exercise of their Duties.
Also, the appellant wishes the City Council to deliberate as to whether ignoring the complainants pre-hearing objections and motions, as well as requested evidence and new evidence, was an exercise in sound judgment on behalf of the Adjudicating Body. Additionally, the Appellant calls for the City Council to set for public review the protocols, rules, and outline established by the City Attorney’s Office for conducting Code of Ethics and Conduct hearings as per the spirit of Resolution No. 22461.
SHOULD THIS BE THE NEW RULE ON THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S EMPLOYEE BULLETIN BOARD?
“WHISTLE BLOWER’S WILL BE FIRED” .. “DO NOT REPORT FRAUD, MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS or any ILLEGAL ACTIVITY by MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, or YOU WILL BE FIRED!”
Your next City of Riverside employee position posting should read:
WANTED: ANYONE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL FROM THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE. ALL OTHERS NEED NOT APPLY…
The whole scheme or artiface behind this commission appears to ensure the monopolization of the market place by AMR, and those ambulance services who can pay CAAS’s high fees for accredition. This would leave out smaller ambulance services by design. Thanks, but no thanks Chief Earley, the PE may call this “arrogant”, we call it plain “despicable.”
But it doesn’t end there folks we did several stories on this regarding the close ties between AMR executives and the City Council and Mayor. Back in October 2011, 6-1, City Council votes to deny Mission Ambulance a franchise, except for Councilman Paul Davis. That means American Medical Response, or AMR, will remain the sole medical transportation provider in Riverside. Councilman William “Rusty” Bailey suggested that a council subcommittee review the ambulance policy, but it’s not yet clear if that will happen. It will never happen, because actions speak louder than words.. Mayor Bailey who was Councilman at the time voted on this denial, and we can see why. At the time Councilman Rusty Bailey was seen with having ice cream at a local Dairy Queen with non other than Peter Hubbard of American Medical Response (AMR).
On a side note and on good authority, we found out that now Mayor William “ Rusty” Bailey bought the cone of ice cream for Peter Hubbard. Could this be a bribe? You decide.. the point folks in this bit of levity but on good authority, is that we intend to expose the relationships of old family connections which have created a culture of corruption in the City of Riverside. We are just sorry our source could not attain the ice cream flavor…
City of Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey Sorry, Mayor William Rusty Bailey
What else can we tell you of the incestuous relationship with the City of Riverside and even Riverside County. Well, TMC has found that back in February 13, 2012 the State Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) states that City of Riverside and County of Riverside overstepped it’s authority in limiting ambulance services. TMC therefore ask the question if the $1.4 Million that AMR provides the City of Riverside each year for paramedic training and equipment contribute to how the City votes on issues that impact AMR? TMC thinks so, we also think it can be construed as a “bribe.” Oopps, I said it, and I’ll say it again, a “bribe.” Others have mentioned that the $1.4 million allows AMR to buy two more minutes from an agreed response time. This allows AMR to be late by 2 minutes, therefore how does this help the injured? We say it is just like having a bad burrito, it just doesn’t sit well in the stomach’s of the Riverside community residents. This of course shouldn’t be the case.
Bruce Barton, director of the county’s Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Tom McEntee, AMR’s general manager, said Thursday there was no intent to mislead anyone at the Oct. 17 workshop. Information about the rate increase was widely available online, Barton said. Let’s not forget the accreditation company CAAS, Sarah McEntee, the executive director of CAAS is the wife of AMR’s general manager, Tom McEntee. Incestuous?
According to public speaker Rebecca Ludwig, could “Golden Boy”, Riverside County Supervisor, John Taviglione have a part with AMR?
So what is next for General Earley, oopps, retired at work again Fire Chief Steve Earley? You decide… You are always right, citizens of Riverside, make your opinions be known at City Council and not be afraid of retribution by the City as some residents have indicated. One we are none, more than one we are many….
Will the real Steve Earley please come forward..
As one local Riverside critics stated, “Would that mean its OK to embezzle as long as you don’t go over the budget?”
Of course, you know, there is more to come… stayed tuned for another episode of “As Riverside Turns Your Stomach”.
With this, questions still linger regarding the process that went down. Why is the Fire Union making decisions regarding the taxpayer? Why is it that the City, through City Manager Scott Barber, must look elsewhere, outside the City for a new Chief? Don’t we have capable people who can move up the rank, such as Deputy Chief Mike Esparza. Incidently, Mike Esparza was chose to be the interim Fire Chief until a new one is found. I just say we keep the new Fire Chief Mike Esparza.
Esparza will take charge until March 2014; the next in roatation are Division Chief Bill Schellhous from April through June; and Division Chief LaWayne Hearn from July through September. Again if we are touted as having the best of the best due to are training, why must we look outside for another candidate? Time and time again we see the same scenario, we’ve seen it with Police Chief Sergio Diaz, another double dipper. But remember this was also the legacy of the prior City Manager who skipped town when he seen the writing on the wall.. Brad Hudson. Hudson was responsible for the hiring of Police Chief Sergio Diaz as well as Fire Chief Steve Earley, from the County of Riverside whereby Hudson previously worked, not to mention our current City Manager Scott Barber, former Public Works Director Siobhan Foster, who was said by insiders didn’t know what a “pot hole” was, and current Human Resource Director, Rhonda Strout, known in some circles and “Luxury Girl”, who had her own set of problems with the cost of liability to the tax payer with current employees.
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
UPDATE: FULLERTON POLICE NOT GUILTY IN MURDER OF KELLY THOMASSobs fill courtroom..Many are asking the question, why aren’t police cleaning house of the bad apples? If not, is the beginning of a police state mentality? Where by the judge and the jury accepted the actions of the police. Will it be acceptable that the police act as the judge, jury and executioner, and the court system only a formality? Should we as residents and citizens be concerned and afraid?
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 ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
IS THE ETHICS PROCESS NOTHING MORE THAN JUST A KANGAROO COURT RUN BY THE CAPTAIN KANGAROO HIMSELF, GREG PRIAMOS?
Has our Ethics Complaint process been thoughtfully designed by City insiders to orchestrate a favorable result each and every time a complaint is brought forward to the adjudicating body by a member of the public? We’ve noticed the members of that body always seems to somehow be a little too closely associated with City business. We therefore ask the following question, “did this resolution deny former employee of Public Utilities, Jason Hunter, due process and deny his civil liberties regarding his right to a fair hearing?”
Mr. Hunter was recruited to run our utility’s wholesale marketing and trading function. Apparently, he wasn’t too impressed by what he saw there, because he became a whisteblower within years of his start date. A non-native to Riverside, poor Mr. Hunter just didn’t know exactly how we treat, “those kinds,” when he began his complaints. Of course, if he did, he most likely would not have come to the River City in the first place! When the City terminated his services, in lieu of a lawsuit, it appears Mr. Hunter filed an ethics complaint to quickly and inexpensively get to the bottom of what he perceived to be an illegal and unethical appeals hearing process within the City, which he had just been dragged through, he filed an ethics complaint against our Human Resources Board…only to find out that process was as crooked as the appeals process!
His concerns included the City hiring outside council, whereby he had none, City Attorney Gregory Priamos’s continued interference in the process, etc., etc., ad naseum, ad infinitum.
When we look at the following resolution passed by City Council passed October 2012, the above resolution appears to contradict the core values. One of the core values is “creating trust in government.” By consolidating all individuals into one hearing represented by one or several attorneys, places doubt on this concept. The conflict of interest of Justin Scott Coe, chairman of the Ethics Panel, also chairman of the board of Public Utilities, of the department of which Hunter’s services were terminated. It doesn’t stop there, the first hearing did not end in a definitive decision, but was deferred to a later date or continuance, so the panel could study the complaint with a better perspective. We will get to that a bit later. Priamos was did not appear at any of the ethics hearing, and according to Hunter should have recused himself at the Human Resources hearing as a result their prior interaction with his resulted in none compliance to his document and informational request.
Hunter names the following as part of the ethics complaint: Norman Powell, Chairman of the Human Resources Board; Arthur Butler, Holly Evans, Jamie Wrage, Sonya Dew and Tricia Eibs, all members of the Human Resources Board.
I object to the city paying for outside counsel for the Human Resources Board members at their ethics hearing if this indeed is happening. I remain unrepresented and question the fairness of such arrangement.
Per City Charter Section 702 (b), the City Attorney is to, “represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which any such officer or employee is concerned or is a party for any act arising out of such officer’s or employee’s employment or by reason of such officer’s or employee’s official capacity.”
I object to the City Attorney’s Office advising the Ethic Hearing Committee, as it cannot fulfill its obligation under the Charter and remain as independent counsel to this committee. This is an obvious conflict of interest, much like the City Attorney himself advising the Human Resources Board at my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013, while his subordinate, Mr. Neal Ozaki, advocated against me. In fact, as a former city employee, I question why I was not given the option of being represented at the City’s expense at the May hearing, as it appears members of the Human Resources Board will be at this Friday’s scheduled hearing.
I object to the City Attorney’s Office writing the protocols all-together. Per Section 804 of the City Charter: “Each board or commission may prescribe its own rules and regulations which shall be consistent with the Charter and copies of which shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk where they shall be available for public inspection.” Resolution No. 22590 violates the Charter by allowing a conflicted City Attorney to unilaterally adopt the protocols for this hearing and is therefore illegitimate.
I object to any past, present, or future ex-parte communication between Smith Law Offices, city-appointed counsel (I assume) for the Human Resources Board, and either Ethics Committee members themselves or their counsel regarding any matters regarding this complaint. If this communication has already occurred, I demand to know the nature of such, and based upon such information, may request dismissal of the HRB’s counsel or Ethics Committee members to ensure a fair hearing. Per the California Public Records Act, I request all contracts and invoices of Smith Law Offices with the city related to this hearing.
I object to city of Riverside board and commission chairmen serving as members of the adjudicating body. These appointed officials owe a duty to the city of Riverside, and hence have a considerable conflict in remaining independent. Further, they themselves fall under the jurisdiction of the Code of Ethics and Conduct and are therefore not unbiased in determining the intent of the voters in interpreting the code. Moreover, members of the adjudicating body themselves may be subject to ethics complaints at a future date, with members of the current Human Resources Board finding themselves serving as their adjudicating panel. The conflict here is obvious.
For the same rationale as above, I object to the Riverside City Council serving as the appellate body.
I object to Justin Scott-Coe serving as the chairman of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Scott-Coe is the current chairman of the Board of Public Utilities. I was illegally terminated without cause from Riverside Public Utilities in part for whistleblowing activities against its executives, and the conflict here should be obvious.
I object to being given only 15 minutes to state my case. This matter should be dealt with seriously and no time limits should be in place, as long as relevant materials are being discussed and the meeting is progressing efficiently. I question the fairness of this protocol, and its compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to opposing counsel being given unlimited time to state its case, given the restrictions on my time. I question the fairness of this protocol.
I object to not being allowed to compel witnesses and evidence, as allowed under Section 804 of the City Charter.
I object to not being allowed to question city employees and members of the Human Resources Board as to their involvement in the proceedings of May 13, 2013. I question the absence of this protocol, and whether this absence violates compliance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Resolution No. 22318) itself.
I object to not receiving answers to the various questions I have asked to elected officials and public employees over the course of the last several months in regards to this complaint and my grievance hearing of May 13, 2013.
In an email to the City Council he hopes that they would consider the alternative..
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE AND VIEW EMAIL
The City Charter for the City of Riverside is as follows where he specifically refers to Section 804:
In the second part of the hearing or the continuance, after 2 hours of discussion the panel found no code of ethics violation connected with the hearing process of the Human Resource Board, but the panel would recommend to City Council that their be more training of the Human Resource Board. Also noted was the interference of City Attorney Gregory Priamos in the process. What was also disturbing was that Ethics Panel Chairman Justin Scott Coe admitted meeting with City Attorney Gregory Priamos prior to the hearing, and that he recieved a set of protocol from Priamos that the others on the Ethics Panel did not receive. Again we have a conundrum with the perseption of conflict of interest and swaying the decision process by the City Attorney himself.
City Attorney Gregory Priamos Public Utilities Board Chair Justin Scott-Coe
Ortiz was quite outspoken on the issue, but it doesn’t end their. A complaint was issued by Jason Hunter regarding an RPD episode at his home, evidently initiated by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. In regards to this episode, Hunter issued a complaint against the Riverside Police Department via the Riverside Community Police Review Committee. Will Hunter recieve a fair hearing of which was against Riverside’s finest? His story is as follows:
RPD GIVE FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE JASON HUNTER A VISIT
What TMC learned, was that after Hunter was released from his postion, a pack of three RPD officers were sent to his house. We were later told anonymously that one of the RPD officers was known as “Crazy Vince.” We learned they were sent by non other thatn City Attorney Gregory Priamos, this in order to question him regarding a complaint made against him of alleged threats. He was told by an RPD officer that he was not allowed to appear at City Council or on the City Hall grounds. The officer told him they would place handouts around to inform other RPD officers. “You can’t do that,” Hunter stated. The officer responded, if you do they’re may a young edgey police officer and you may get shot. Now what we had in the past, was Karen Wright arrested for going over the 3 minute mark, Letitia Pepper arrested for clapping, and now the threat to shoot to kill a former employee by RPD enforcers given the order per the City Attorney Gregory Priamos. When RPD attempted and reached Hunter’s ex-wife to ask her information regarding his state of mind, she asked how did you get my information? They didn’t respond. She also now has a complaint with CPRC for illegally attaining private information, as well as Jason Hunter for the threats to kill him if he shows up at City Hall. It doesn’t get better than this folks! Others also have come out anonymously, and have also had experiences with RPD acting out of the line of duty as “enforcers.” We certainly may not hear anything from DA Zellerbach, expecially in an election year..or Chief Sergio Diaz, because I imagine they will say it just doesn’t exist. So far the Riverside Community Police Riview Committee has not responded to Hunter’s complaint. But how will this pan out with City supporter Ortiz, a BB&K Attorney and Commission Member of the Riverside Community Police Review Committee? In which their mission statement states that the Community Police Riview Commission was created in order to promote public confidence in the professionalism and accountability of the the sworn staff of the Riverside Police Department. Sworn should mean something to a police officer, to uphold the law and not the so called blue line of protection. Most use the term to refer to the unwavering commitment the police have for each other, to the point of willingness to blur the truth in favor of their “blue” brethren. Meaning: The police do not cross “the thin blue line” when it comes to defending each others’ actions.
Let’s hope TMC doesn’t get a visit from the so called enforcers… Thanks, we have the FBI.
More to come on this breaking story…
PAST ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN CHRIS MAC ARTHUR:
Going through past ethics complaints we bring the isssue of the complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur and his legislative aide Chuck Condor. While the adjudicating body found no wrong doing, OSHA cited with the complainents regarding the action in question. Councilman Adams may have other words to describe his attack on complanents, “Did you see it? did you see it?”
Incidently, there is also an incident of stalking, anonymously sent to us, regarding Lanzillo when he was with RPD. This he did as a uniformed officer.
The City continues to be in the business of government entertainment, even though the Fox Theatres continues to operate in the black at over $1 million a year.
GOING BACK IN TIME IN RPD, THE KEERS COMPLAINT: “LOOK HER MOUTH IS OPEN, SHE MUST BE TRYING TO GET PROMOTED.”
In 1989, when Keers yawned in the bay, Detective Ron Adams (Councilman Steve Adam’s brother, prior police officer), commented, “Look her mouth is open, she must be trying to get promoted.” Nice Ron..and good luck on your brother who believes he is Congressman material for the next election. Watch out folk who you vote for!
This complaint filed by female RPD officer Keers back in the 90’s against the police department. Yes, it does have Councilman Steve Adams brother Ron Adams included in this complaint. Even now, what will the City of Riverside do to curtail undo liability against the taxpayer via their employees, such as RPD?
HOW DOES IT LOOK WHEN RIVERSIDE CITY ATTORNEY, GREG PRIAMOS, IS HELPING BEST, BEST & KRIEGER MAKE TONS OF MONEY FROM RIVERSIDE CITY TAXPAYERS BY VIOLATING STATE BAR RULES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
According to an email sent to TMC by Attorney Letitia Pepper the following was stated:
As I think most of you know, local activists have been trying for years to get copies of any contracts for legal services between the City of Riverside and the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger. This is because the City Charter provides that the City Council is supposed to approve — after review of course — contracts for outside legal for legal services.
Their Public Record Act requests have been met with a claim that no such contracts exist! Yet the City continues to pay BB&K the big bucks — but without any contracts?
State Bar Rules require that attorneys provide all clients with a written contract for any legal services. There are only two possible exceptions to this requirement that might apply to explain why no contracts exist between BB&K and the City:
(1) if the services provided were provided on an emergency basis (in which case a contract in writing must be provided once the emergency has been dealt with), or
(2) if the client has waived its right to a written contract.
I have urged these activists to submit a written Public Records Act request to the City for any records related to the existence of such a waiver of the right to a written contract. I don’t know if they’ve done so yet. But this is an important issue that must be addressed alongside the absence of any written contracts.
Would such a waiver of the City of Riverside’s right to a written contract for legal services be legally valid? No, it would not.
The right to a written contract for outside legal services, which can then be reviewed and approved only by the complete City Council, is a right which exists for the public’s interest, not the interest of the City Attorney, or the interest of the City Council members. A right created in the public interest can never be waived.
This issue is of particular importance right now. The City Attorney has been retaining the expensive services of Best, Best & Krieger to file amici briefs in appeals in which the City of Riverside has absolutely no interests! The amicus brief I was shown by Jason Thompson, Esq. already filed By BB&K on behalf of the City of Riverside, even states, in its introduction, thatRiverside has no interest in such case.
After the City Council’s plea (and mailings) that people vote for Measure A, or else face the reduction or closure of libraries and other public services, why and how is the City paying for such legal fees? Do the members of the City Council even know what’s going on, or how much money we’re bleeding in fees in cases in which the City and its residents are not involved?
And is the City Council prepared to allow the City Attorney to continue to funnel taxpayers’ dollars into even more lawsuits related to Best, Best & Krieger’s lucrative war against medical marijuana, when the City’s own residents have not been demanding an attack on medical marijuana?
Who is running this City? Its residents, or the City Attorney?
Below is a link to the page at the BB&K website, showing how BB&K will be able to continue to raid the public trough for millions of dollars, with help from City Attorney Greg Priamos, unless the City Council demands that, as required by the City Charter, any further outside legal services be first put into a written proposal, with a written legal services contract, submitted to them as an agenda item, and then put to a vote of the complete city council.
I request that Jason Thompson provide the City Council, the press, and the public with copies of these amicus briefs showing that the citizens of Riverside are paying for legal services that provide them with absolutely no benefits.
Our governments, at all levels, have been hijacked by special, financial interests. What’s happened in Riverside with this outside-legal-service-payments-without-a-written-contract scheme is a great local example. It’s also a great opportunity for our currently elected officials to prove that they are going to begin to represent their constituents, not big businesses, and not big law firms.
Sincerely, Letitia E. Pepper
Here’s the link to BB&K’s website that shows that, if the City Council doesn’t regain control over outside legal services, we’ll be bleeding wasted money for years to come.http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40%20&an=27170&format=xml#!”
According to a Press Enterprise story on December 24, 2013, Assistant City Manager Belinda Graham again signed on the Rancho Cucamonga law firm Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse to again investigate another alleged wrongdoing case for the City. This time they were hired to investigate RPD’s asset forfeiture expenditures. If you remember back in May 2011 we did a story regarding forming Deputy City Attorney Raychele Sterling’s allegation of that former City Manager Brad Hudson was allegedley steering contracts to his friends. This Sterling learned from emails via employs in that department. Ms. Sterling reported these allegations of favoritism and was then fired by City Attorney Greg Priamos. City officials then said the allegations of contract steering were baseless, the City Attorney never responded and City Manger Hudson hired the above firm to investigate himself and put to put to rest these allegations against him. The law firm will charge the taxpayer a measley $300.00 plus incidentals. After $150,000.00, the law firm miraculously concluded the allegations were baseless! What a miracle. Belinda Graham was also assistant city manager under Hudson. We as taxpayers must begin to ask the City why it has costed us so much liability, not this one case, but other, especially the ones you don’t hear about.
The story gets stranger, because TMC found out later that one of the partners of the law firm, Scott Grossberg, also a motivational speaker who specializes in magic, and is the author of three critically acclaimed and bestselling books, available on Amazon, “The Vitruvian Square: A Handbook of Divination Discoveries,” “The Masks of Tarot,” and “Bauta: Betraying the Face of Illusion,” in addition to his oracle/divination cards, “The Deck of Shadows.” This partner specializes in magic, thought-reading, and divination (Tarot, oracle cards, palmistry, astrology, and numerology). How much will this investigation cost the taxpayer this time, I guess my question to the City of Riverside is, does this get paid through the taxpayer or the other side. But it may be as it is in Belinda’s world, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse may be just the thing to take this investigation that one step beyond.
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 ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
At the June 26th City Council Meeting former deputy city attorney Raychele Sterling gave kudos to Councilman Paul Davis for calling City Attorney Gregory Priamos “out on his lies” the prior week…it was nice to see that somebody would actually do that.
She went on to say that I’m here to talk about Employee issues, which appear to be on going. People seem to be completely out of their minds, creating so much liability for you (referring to city management). As I have said, over and over again, this stems not from personnel issue, but is a policy issue. You continue to have employees sue you, you continue to have employees file claims, then your management comes back and says, geee.. maybe we should continue to retaliate against them because this will be great for our law suit and I’m sure the jury would really appreciate that. Well you might as well just add a couple more zeros to the check we have to pay out! Well it not changing..and you have to change because the law suits will continue to come..
She went on to say, that if Tom Boyd, Public Works Director, calls any special meetings, or you believe he is harassing you, or retaliating against you, or if he writes a work performance evaluation that you don’t agree with..I want you to give me call, my number is 951-203-9952. I will be happy to represent you pro bono, no charge! Because this is going to stop! TMC learned that a city employee who filed a civil lawsuit against the city a little more than a month ago was being set up for an administrative hearing with one day notice. This was with Public Works Director Tom Boyd along with the usual suspects. When Sterling contacted them, and said she would be representing this employee, the administrative hearing was called off, and business as usual was stopped for the moment.
She went on to talk about her grandparents who are absolutely disgusted with the council, with respect to her 87 year old grandmother who she said, “I never heard a cuss word come out of her mouth”. Her grandmother said, ” you go there (to city council meetings) and they might as well give you the finger”.
“We have no government here”, Sterling said, “you give all your power to Scott, your city manager, and you don’t monitor anything that he is doing, and he makes you end up looking like asses a lot of the times, and that’s really unfortunate, especially for people running for mayor. You don’t want to be associated with that Rusty. You said Jesus Christ is your inspiration. I can’t ever think of an situation where Jesus Christ would ever under any circumstances permit employees to be just tortured the way that they are here at the City, and you have an obligation, not only as a Councilman and a Christian to make sure that stops immediately”
Public speaker Paul Chavez spoke prior to Sterling regarding an issue that occurred the prior week concerning workshop highlighting redistricting. Mr. Chavez was surprised and disappointed in what the council did. He said, “usually when you have a workshop, you don’t take a vote, because it is a workshop……you don’t make that type of a decision, you can have a concept of which way you want to go, or a direction of where you want to go, but you don’t make a decision”. He went on to say that a vote was taken.. “I don’t know if it is legal or not… that’s why you have a city attorney”, (referencing City Attorney Gregory Priamos). “The point that was very disturbing, was that the chamber (referencing the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce presided by CEO/ President Cindy Roth), came in and made a proposal. I attended some of the other meetings for redistricting and nothing was mentioned. Up to the last minute it was a ‘workshop’, you were all here (referencing the council), and you heard everybody talking about different things of what they like and disliked.”
“The chamber came in and told you that they wanted the ‘Market Place’”, (a district located in Councilman Andy Melendrez’s Ward). And you said (the present council without Concilman Andy Melendrez present) “that’s a good idea, let’s all take it”! Chavez said “the one that wasn’t spoken to was Mr. Melendrez (Councilman Melendrez), he was taken off guard. That was very good planning for the chamber, and you guys all went for it. It makes me very disappointed in all of you. Also, it shows that those who are running for mayor, what kind of person are you? (I’d imagine Chavez was referring to Councilman “Rusty” Bailey who claims to be an independent voice for Riverside). Is that what we want as citizens, you don’t listen to us.. that’s the way I say. I had a friend that was there and I asked him if you were going to the city council, he said no , what for? They just look at you, they let you talk but they don’t really hear you or acknowledge what you saying . So if this continues on you may have a lawsuit on your bench again, just as it has happened before and they have won, and we as taxpayer have to pay for that. I wish you would reconsider when this comes up again, and stand for the people, not for the chamber, or our you guys bought out”?
While others in the community are calling this a “land grab” or “underhanded”, Dan Berstein explained this bit of shenanigans in the following blog posting, Eastside to Riverside: We Wuz Robbed! Even PE’s Alicia Robinson had something to say in her blog posting Redistricting Riverside: Carving Up The Eastside. TMC has spoken about this time and time again about what appears to be an incestuous relationship between the Chamber and the City of Riverside. Cindy Roth who is president/CEO of the Greater Riverside Chamber, incidently her husband Richard Roth who has a position on the chamber, who also does work legal work for the City of Riverside and is runnig for State Senate and has the endorsement of the Mayor Ron Loveridge.. The residents and constituents of Riverside are disgusted and apathetic, and feel they have no recourse to make change as should appropriately be done by elected officials who flip flop on issues and do not listen to the real needs of the community. Some have even used religion as a backdrop, and throwing citizen concerns through the back door..
I guess the question is for Councilpeople, anything Cindy wants, Cindy gets? What would give Cindy Roth that much prominence? Is it such a big deal to take the Marketplace and integrate it with the Downtown? Why would they consider doing this in the first place? Is it because it’s technically part of the East Side, and that has a negative connotation with many? If we christened the East Side Marketplace as now part of Downtown, would the perceived visual perceptions change and now not be associated with the current perceptions of that nasty East Side? Will the “East Side” now be just known as “the other side of the tracks”? But Riverside Chamber’s, President/CEO, Cindy Roth wanted it that way, and the council thought it was a good idea. Anything Cindy wants, Cindy gets? For whatever reason it was done, what can I say, even independent voice of the people Rusty Bailey thought it was a good idea. But Roth’s connections with the cities who’s who are appearing to be very clear.
Even her husband Richard Roth currently running for State Senate has clear ties with the City of Riverside by doing legal work for them. Not to mention, he is part of the Board of Directors for the Riverside Chamber. But now presented as the new improved and patriotic General Richard Roth for Senate. Roth in conjunction with former Riverside Councilman Dom Betro had at a luncheon meeting with Democratic Senate Candidate Steve Clute, who was asked to step down from his running position….something for the community to think about regarding the generalisimo hardballing the Senate position…
Voilà, Now a Marketable Item for the Political Marketplace…
But what is the big deal? there only businesses? Well, you already know how business friendly the City of Riverside can be, just take a stroll down the Main Street Mall.
TMC ARTIST RENDERING OF WHAT THE NEW MARKETPLACE MAY LOOK LIKE.
IT WAS TO LATE FOR SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF TO HIT THE TOWN DRINKING AT THE USUAL WATERING HOLES AS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WENT ON BEYOND THE 12 MIDNIGHT HOUR.
THE REDISTRICTING ISSUE VOTED BY CITY COUNCIL 6-0 TO TAKE THIS ISSUE TO GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. CRITICISM OF THE COUNCIL CAME UNDERFIRE WEEKS AGO WHEN RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CEO/PRESIDENT CINDY ROTH MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT ‘THE MARKETPLACE’ (PART OF COUNCILMAN ANDY MELENDREZ’S WARD 2) BE PART OF DOWNTOWN (WARD 1 COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER’S DISTRICT). WHILE A PACKED HOUSE OF RESIDENT AND BUSINESS OWNERS FILLED COUNCIL CHAMBER, THE MAJORITY SPOKE AGAINST THE MOVE. PUBLIC SPEAKER, CHRISTINA DURAN EVEN SUBMITTED AND PLACED COUNCIL ON NOTICE WITH AN OBJECTION LETTER. THOSE IN FAVOR WERE THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP AND OF COURSE, THE GREATER RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BOTH WHO RECEIVE CITY TAXPAYER MONIES FOR THEIR ENDEAVORS. COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ COMMENTED ON THE TRUE PURPOSE OF RESDRICTING. REDISTRICTING IS ABOUT POPULATION, AND NOWHERE IT IS TO BE USED TO FAVOR BUSINESSES. FOR THE MOMENT, ‘THE CINDY LAND’ DEBACLE REMAINS ON HOLD.
THE ISSUE OF FUNDING FOR THE PURPLE PIPE REMAINS IN LIMBO FOR THE MOMENT, WHILE A PACKED HOUSE SPOKE AGAINST IT. PUBLIC SPEAKER SCOTT SIMPSON PROVIDED AND PLACED THE CITY ON NOTICE WITH AN OBJECTION LETTER. SIMPSON WENT BEYOND THE 3 MINUTES WHICH TRIGGERED RONNY’S BOUNCERS (RPD) TO ESCORT HIM FROM THE PODIUM. AS SIMPSON MOVED AWAY FROM THE PODIUM AND BACK TO HIS SEAT, HE CONTINUED TO READ HIS OBJECTION. THAT WAS A SIGHT TO SEE.. FOR THAT, TMC SHOUTS OUT, A ‘THAT A BOY’! THE CITIZENS ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE…
TMC HAS OBTAINED SCOTT SIMPSON’S OBJECTION LETTER TO THE PURPLE PIPE WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT CITY COUNCIL.
QUESTIONS AROSE IF RECLAIMED WATER IS SAFE FOR PLANTS, AND IF PEOPLE AND CHILDREN ARE SAFE ON THE GROUNDS WHERE IT IS USED. RIVERSIDE CITRUS GROWERS ALREADY MADE THEIR CASE THAT IT CANNOT BE USED FOR CITRUS. ON SAFETY AND CEQA GUIDELINES (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT), THE CITY SAID THEY WERE ABLE TO ‘BY PASS’ CEQA. LEAVING QUESTIONS OF HOW CAN THE ISSUE OF THE SAFETY OF RECLAIMED WATER BYPASS CEQA?
THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE RED LIGHT CAMERA STAY, AFTER MAYOR BREAKS 3-3 COUNCIL TIE (COUNCILMAN MELENDREZ, MAC ARTHUR AND DAVIS VOTE AGAINST THEIR CONTINUED USE) WITH MAYOR LOVERIDGE BRINGING IN THE DECIDING VOTE TO FURTHER STUDY THE ISSUE OF MAKING IT COST EFFECTIVE. COUNCILMAN STEVE ADAMS LOBBIES IN FAVOR OF CAMERAS, AND USES EXAMPLES OF SAFETY AND DEATHS, AND AS ADAMS SAYS..’BODIES’. MANY CITIES ALTOGETHER HAVE DISMANTLED RED LIGHT CAMERAS DUE TO COST, SAFETY ISSUES AND THE USE OF COMPANY PSUEDO STATISTICS DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. COUNCILMAN ADAMS HAS BEEN AT THE BRUNT OF CRITICISM REGARDING ISSUES OF NEPOTISM DUE HIS BROTHER RON ADAMS HIRED AS A RED LIGHT CAMERA PHOTO EXPERT.
UPDATE: 07/17/2012: WILL RON BRING THE LOVE ON HOME TO BILL BAILEY? THE MAYOR’S ENDORSEMENT FOR THE MAYOR’S CANDIDANCY..WHO WILL IT BE? THE GIGGLES OF EXCITEMENT ARE APPEARING TO OCCUR ON MAYOR CANDIDATE’S BAILEY’S FACEBOOK PAGE, AS HE EXPRESSES A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE RELEASED IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS REGARDING A SIGNIFICANT ENDORSEMENT…
AT TODAYS PRESS CONFERENCE, ADKISON PRESENTED HIS BANCRUPTCY PREVENTION PLAN AND SIGNED A PLEDGE TO DO SO. HE CHALLENGED RUSTY TO DO THE SAME. THIS PLAN IS NEEDED, WITH A REJECTIONS FROM THE STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IN EXCESS OF $90 MILLION AND A NEW 218 LAW SUIT, THE GENERAL FUND WILL BE HIT HARD, CUTS NEED TO BE MADE STARTING WITH THE MAYOR’S OFFICE! IS THERE MORE SALICIOUS INFORMATION COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE WITH REGARDS TO OPPONENT WILLIAM “RUSTY” BAILEY?
RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN…MAIN STREET, LOOKING FROM CURRENT CITY HALL (CIRCA 1930)
TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. PROUDLY RATED ONE STAR (POSSIBLY DOWN TO ZERO FROM OUR LAST ACCOUNTS) OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR GOOD REASON, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST, FOR GOOD REASON… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPHALL SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR CONTACT US BY THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS! CONTRIBUTORS WILL ALWAYS BE PROTECTED… YES, WE EXPECT THE JAIL TIME FOR THAT ONE… THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM
CLICK THIS LINK TO VIEW VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.
jehunter51
