The firefighters are well aware of Kevin Jeffries long history of fooling the voters. In his 2006 campaign for State Assembly, with no work experience to list for his occupation, vocation or profession, he tried to claim he was a “firefighter” for his ballot designation. Volunteer work is not allowed to be listed for a ballot designation but worse, his poor performance as even a volunteer was not taken lightly by local firefighters who heard of his attempt to degrade the hard work and education they go through to earn their place in their proud profession. As a result, the California Department of Forestry successfully sued Jeffries stating they could not stand for voter deception.

Jeffries had to change his ballot designation and chose to be listed as a businessman that year. Some business man! Kevin collects the rent from commercial property that his mother inherited. Kevin’s lack of education, experience or qualifications was apparent when he didn’t even try to put together a 250 word candidate statement to be published in the Sample Ballot that the Registrar mailed to voters that year.

Jeffries was the incumbent and the only Republican on the ballot in 2008, as it will be again this November. In a highly Republican district, Jeffries is certain to win again unless Republicans will finally stand tall and boot out corruption in their party.The most compelling evidence honest Republicans may need to spread the word is Jeffries’ highly publicized history of taking a bribe to advance his political ambition. The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. §1951 [1994]) makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions is also prohibited under the act. The quid pro quo story follows.

Dan Stephenson of Rancon raised over a half million dollars to oppose the 2005 Murrieta Recall Measure against a three-member voting block that included the now convicted felon, former Mayor Jack vanHaaster. But that was not enough for Stephenson in this highly Republican Party affiliated city. Stephenson wanted the Republican Party to endorse opposition of the recall. Jeffries was the elected chairman of the Riverside County Republican Party and the elected director of the Western Municipal Water District who saw an opportunity to advance his political career.

In an interview with Stephenson, he admitted it took four phone calls to Jeffries before Kevin finally agreed to allow the Riverside County Republican Party to be used in a propaganda letter opposing the Murrieta Recall Measure - but there was a quid pro quo condition. Stephenson said he told Jeffries, “If you do this for us, I will support your campaign”. Keep in mind these calls were made before anyone is allowed to declare candidacy for the 2006 Republican Primary for State Assembly. On page 9 in this month’s online newspaper you can read the widely circulated “campaign support” letter that is signed by Stephenson on Rancon Group letterhead.

As added insight into Jeffries’ character, he did not step up to the plate like a man and sign the Riverside County Republican Party propaganda piece himself. He used his office subordinate, Dave Everett, for the deception. Then on the night of the 2005 Murrieta Recall Special Election, Jeffries and Tom Rogers (of Senator Hollingsworth’s office) monitored the recall results at the Registrar’s office in Riverside. They told The Bugle that Everett was young and was pressured by Stephenson’s consultants to sign the letter. Jeffries added that since Dave Everett was an employee, the matter “would be handled in executive session”.

As a Riverside County voter, your executive session will be held on November 2, 2010. Spread the word if corruption in local politics is not how you want your community to be represented. “If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.”

Political Disclosure Evasion - Knight vs Knight Compared

Or is the DA’s office participating in public intimidation?
June 2010

“Any attempt to mislead the voters by violating the law will be aggressively investigated and prosecuted by this office,” said District Attorney Rod Pacheco after the arrest of Michel Knight, a Temecula resident who supported the recall of Lake Elsinore Councilmember Buckley. The DA’s quote is highly suspect and public opinion is that the case against Michel Knight is pure and simple public intimidation intended to discourage any attempt to recall elected officials in Riverside County.

The DA’s office and the mainstream press has made a spectacle of Michel Knight and since August 2009, Knight and a few of his employees at Trevi Entertainment Center were investigated by the District Attorney’s Office for their involvement in the recall measure. It was alleged that Knight committed numerous illegal acts. The recall failed with only a 14% voter turnout which raises another question. How many ballots were stolen in that election?

Remember back in 2005 when the public tried to recall a three member voting block in Murrieta? Dan Stephenson of Rancon bragged about raising a half-million dollars to oppose that recall and even bribed Kevin Jeffries to get the Republican Party to oppose the recall. Did they find that it is cheaper to intimidate the public in order to discourage any future recall measures?

Knight has been charged by the District Attorney’s Office with conspiracy to commit perjury, conspiracy to file false documents, conspiracy to violate campaign disclosure requirements, perjury, filing false documents and violating campaign disclosure requirements. On May 20, Michel Knight, 49, was arrested about 9:40 a.m. outside his Temecula home. Investigators then drove him to Riverside where he was booked at the Robert Presley Detention Center. For what? He apparently filed his personal campaign expenditure document a few weeks late! The election was held on February 23, 2010 and two days later Knight filed his Form 461 showing $14,528 in expenditures related to the recall. Few individuals who spend their hard earned money on political campaigns know anything about the Fair Political Practices Forms or their due dates. Knight’s form was due on January 31, 2010.

Compare Michel Knight’s case to Vick Knight who was elected many times to the Lake Elsinore School Board and then decided to upgrade his political position by running for the Riverside County Board of Education. About six years ago, when Vick Knight was first elected to the Riverside County Board of Education, that election was selected at random for audit by the Fair Political Practices Commission. Was Vick Knight audited? No. Why not? He never filed ANY financial disclosure documents. Without documents there is nothing available to audit. In fact the Registrar’s office looked and claimed Vick Knight had no documents on file for any of his past campaigns.

Evasion and complicity are suspected here. Every political candidate is well versed in the law for campaign disclosure and filing deadlines. The Registrar and city clerks make sure of it. In the race for County Board of Education, Vick Knight received the endorsement of the Lake Elsinore Teachers Union earning him a $1000 campaign contribution. Where was the money deposited? There was even a slate mailer that misspelled Vick’s name and the printing company was requested to refund the money charged. Where is the campaign checkbook register? No one will ever know since the DA’s office is not investigating this long time political hack.That raises suspicion about the sincerity of the DA’s opening quote printed in this editorial. Is Vick Knight a well-connected Republican who is above the law in the DA’s eyes?

Getting back to Michel Knight’s case, there does appear to be reasonable doubt that there was any intent at wrongdoing. Michel Knight did file a document that shows he personally supported the recall and one of his former employees did file proper papers to establish a committee to support the recall. When a committee is formed to oppose or support a candidate or measure, a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 460 must be filed with the city clerk if expenditures are expected to exceed $1000. The investigation showed that a then-employee of Trevi Entertainment, Enelida Caron, was listed as forming the recall measure committee and served as its treasurer. The form listed a single contribution of $1,500 for the use of office space under the name of a Trevi employee and the investigation showed that the payment for the office space was made by Trevi Entertainment, a business entity. If Trevi is a corporation, any tax attorney will tell you that the business is considered a separate individual that should not be confused with a person. Forms were submitted to the Lake Elsinore city clerk and signed under penalty of perjury.

The DA’s office is claiming that Knight and Caron conspired to conceal Knight’s involvement in the recall effort and conspired to commit perjury by willfully failing to disclose Knight’s monetary contributions on the Committee’s Form 460. Again it was the business, according to the DA’s office, not Michel Knight personally, that made the contribution for office space to the committee and Michel Knight did file Form 461 for his personal expenditures to support the recall. The case against Michel Knight is being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Tim Cross of the Public Integrity Unit. Will we see an investigation and arrest made against Vick Knight, Dan Stephenson and/or Kevin Jeffries? Or is this case strictly a matter of public intimidation?

Nancy Knight, Bugle publisher and author of this Editorial, is not related to either Michel Knight or Vick Knight. A call from the DA’s office is encouraged as documentation and testimony are available to support the DA’s efforts in equal treatment under the law.

Impact of Governor’s Appointment of Senator Benoit to County Supervisor, December 2009

Electing a New Senator

The 37th Senate District is now vacant due to the appointment of Senator Benoit to the position of County Board of Supervisors, District 4, formerly held by Roy Wilson who resigned shortly before his death in October.

Because Riverside County does not have its own charter, which may have allowed for another method to fill the vacated supervisorial position, the Governor was mandated to fill the vacancy by appointment. As a General Law County, Government Code 25060 states: “Whenever a vacancy occurs in any board of supervisors, the Governor shall fill the vacancy”.

The cost to county taxpayers for the Governor’s rush, not well thought out, and financially irresponsible appointment of Benoit effective November 4, 2009 would have been in excess of $2 million ($1.2 million for the Special Primary Election where all Party affiliated candidates compete for their Party’s registered voter nomination, and that same amount again for the Special General Election where each Party’s nominated candidate faces off to win the Senate seat). Approximately 500,000 voters reside in the 37th State Senate District. Election expenses increase with the number of voters in a district with costs dependent on the number of polling places, the number of poll workers and their training, the printing and mailing of Sample Ballots and Official Ballots, etc.

The assumption in the scenario above is that no candidate in the Primary would receive a majority vote (50% +1 regardless of how many candidates run) which would automatically elect that person to the Senate at the Primary level and avoid the cost of the Special General Election. The Governor’s decision to appoint Benoit is considered financially irresponsible as he had many other highly qualified choices for appointment to this short-term Supervisorial position. For example, former legislators Bonnie Garcia or Russ Bogh who Benoit challenged in 2008 for the Republican nomination to the Senate seat. Benoit’s self-serving motive for the appointment is clearly to run for the Supervisor in six months as the incumbent to a position that has no term limits and pays a higher salary than the Senate seat.

When Benoit rescinded his Senate resignation with postponement until November 30, it effectively pushed the Special Primary Election to fill his vacancy out sufficiently to fall under the special rule that if a statewide election falls within 180 days, then the Special General Election will be consolidated with the other planned measures and elected offices on the statewide ballot - saving the taxpayers a portion of the total projected cost of $2.4 million. The Special Primary election to fill the vacated Senate seat will now be held on April 13, 2010 at a cost of $1.2 million. Then if no Party affiliated candidate wins a majority vote, the consolidated election to fill the Senate seat will be held on June 8, 2010.As you can see, these costs which are significant at this time due to decreased county revenue for public safety and other services, could have been avoided if Senator Benoit had kept his Senate seat and ran a fair campaign for County Supervisor along with everyone else in just six months.

Election for County Supervisors

Three non-partisan county supervisor districts come up for election on June 8, 2010. The incumbents on the ballot will be Tavaglione from District 2, Ashley from District 5 and Benoit from District 4 (all Republicans). They each must beat their competition with a majority vote of 50%+1 on June 8 or run another campaign to win the seat in November 2010. The more candidates that sign up to run for the Supervisor seat in the June 8 Primary, the more difficult it becomes for any candidate in a district to take the 50% +1 majority votes. Incumbents have a distinct advantage when there are only two candidates running for a particular office but as the number of challengers increases, the votes become diluted giving everyone a potential second chance to run in the November 2010 election. The new term of office will begin on January 1, 2011 and run through December 31, 2014. The salary is $140,000 per year plus two offices with paid staff and lots of opportunity to reward family and friends with perks. This is THE coveted elected office in the County.

Impact of Supervisor Ashley’s Recall

A Recall Measure is planned to remove Ashley from office if enough signatures can be gathered before the deadline of March 31, 2010. The Committee Supporting the Recall of Supervisor Ashley has a goal to save the the taxpayers the expense of a Special Election by turning in signatures early enough to qualify for consolidation of the Recall with the June 8, 2010 Primary at a projected cost of only about 17 cents per registered voter ($25,000).

They will need a lot of volunteers in Ashley’s district to be circulators of the Petitions but if they are successful in getting the recall on the June 8 ballot and if Ashley is recalled, the successor candidate with the highest votes would serve the remainder of Ashley’s term which expires on December 31, 2010.

Political pundits claim that it is doubtful Ashley could be recalled in the June 8 Primary and also win a majority vote to secure his position on the Board for the new supervisorial term beginning January 2011. However remote this scenario sounds, consider that only 10% of the voters in his district will be needed to sign the Petition to Recall and while they will also no doubt vote to recall him, that is less than half the historical voter turnout. Secondly, even in these hard economic times, the special interests that control who profits in this county and who does not will be pushing to fill Ashley’s campaign war chest.

Regardless of whether the recall makes it to the ballot or not, the majority of voters will be targeted with a massive campaign for a 50%+1 vote to reelect Ashley on June 8. To avoid this scenario, one very strong candidate will need to run against Ashley on June 8 and take the 50%+1 vote or a lot of candidates need to run to dilute the vote and force Ashley to compete again in the November 2010 election where the winner will serve through December 2014. This is a Recall to watch.

How do local Chamber of Commerce membership dues help America’s job creation for illegal immigrants?

As of this writing, all local Chambers contribute membership dues to support the lobbying efforts of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce except two. The two Chambers that are not contributing members at this time are The Wildomar Chamber of Commerce and the Southwest California Chamber of Commerce.

The following lobbying effort for the 111th Congress, that runs from Jan 3, 2009 to Jan 3, 2011, was taken from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website:

Immigration Issues

Throughout our history, the dreams and hard work of immigrants have been a driving force behind America’s success as a strong, prosperous nation. We needthe continued contributions of these immigrants to grow and remain competitive.

For the 111th Congress, the Chamber will:

• Continue to push for comprehensive immigration reform that: increases security; has an earned pathway to legalization for undocumented workers already contributing to our economy, provided that they are law-abiding and prepared to embrace the obligations and values of our society; creates a carefully monitored guest or essential worker program to fill the growing gaps in America’s workforce recognizing that, in some cases, permanent immigrants will be needed to fill these gaps and refrains from unduly burdening employers with worker verification systems that are underfunded or unworkable.

• Urge Congress and the administration to address delays, backlogs, and disruptions in our immigration and border management systems that impede the movement of legitimate cargo and travelers across U.S. borders.

• Ensure the continuity and expansion of H-1B, L-1, and EB visas for professionals and highly valued workers.

• Lobby for reform to enable seasonal and small businesses to continue to use theH-2B temporary visa.

The Wildomar Chamber of Commerce was contacted to inquire as to why they have not joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the short answer was it is expensive. They may join at some time in the future.

The Southwest California Chamber of Commerce, SWCCC, a “new to the world” concept in Chamber functions and operations, has a regional reach that extends from the Menifee Valley to Temecula. Exec. Board member, Atty. Daniel Kodam, provides an extensive answer to the question Why?

“The quick and easy answer is that the board of directors and I want to have a Chamber that addresses and adapts to the ever growing needs of our regional community and not just to the political winds of each particular city. We are one of the fastest growing regions in the country and we should use our ever growing strength to promote our local businesses and region. This Regional Chamber will seek to continuously and effectively promote its members through business promoting activities, an exclusive relationship with the Bugle, and the Chamber’s web-based directory and promotion. While socializing may be a focus of many groups, the Chamber’s mission is to promote existing businesses, small and large, while seeking to attract new businesses in a responsible manner. The Regional Chamber shall accept NO political contributions, NO money from cities, and will NOT pay any of its officers a salary. We want to ensure that the dues are used to promote businesses, not to simply pay administrators.”

Temecula City Council Applies for Annexation of Southwest Hills

Gary Johnson, Granite Construction’s project manager on the proposed andhighly contested Liberty Quarry, stated in a press release on December 8, 2008 that “Ignoring private-property rights seemed like a key theme during the Planning Commission hearing Nov. 19 in Temecula... “What was most shocking that night”, he added, “was the blatant willingness to ignore the fact that sixproperty owners... within the annexation area oppose the city’s effort to annex their land. In that same press release Johnson cited that staff had not consulted with property owners prior to the hearing. Furthermore his remarks regarding the definition of a “taking” of property rights is misleading.

Firstly, back room deals in staff offices “aka consultation” is frowned upon by the public so I applaud Temecula staff for not meeting independently with any of the property owners. Additionally, in a 1988 “Message to the People of California”, Attorney General Van de Kamp cited a 100 year old case as follows: “Since at least Roman times, governments have had some role in regulating land use... In the most important early California environmental case a federal court prohibited the continuation of the placer mining industry because of the damage the mining caused. (Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. (1884) 18 F. 753.)”

Environmental Law and the courts have clearly defined “What is a Taking”. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that private property shall not be taken for public use without justcompensation. Many legal challenges have made their way to the Supreme Court where in 1980 in Agins v. Tiburon the court said “The application of a general zoning law to a particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does notsubstantially advance legitimate state interests, or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.”

Economically viable use. What does that mean? A case in New York in 1978 made it quite clear that “a mere diminution in value does not prove a taking, there must be an actual deprivation of alleconomically viable uses”. Then in 1987it was further clarified in a case involving coal mining... the government maysometimes prohibit all economic use of property without being liable for damages if that is necessary to protect the public health and safety.”

In the southwest hills situation,and contrary to what many Friends of Liberty Quarry may think, property owner rights clearly favors the hundreds ofthousands of valley residents who have a much larger investment in property than a few hundred undeveloped acres. In fact, the Sierra Club recently gave Senator Hollingsworth a perfect score of zeropercent on their scorecard for voting against their legislative agenda 100 % of the time. Hollingsworth, an outspoken “property rights” advocate, supports Granite’s Liberty Quarry. The Sierra Club opposes the project. Hollingsworth said he is “proud to have been recognized for opposing the Sierra Club’s agenda”. Maybe it is time for our elected officials tounderstand the law before the people elect them to become lawmakers.

Honorable Mayor Maryann Edwards commented on her views, rationale and support for annexation. “If handled improperly, annexations can result in a negative impact to the applicant municipalities - as far as costs for services - hence the reason for [Local Agency Formation Commission] LAFCO. But because of the way this annexation would be structured, the cost to provide services, even with the maximum number of residences allowed, would still result in a net gain in revenue for the city. Revenue would be realized from the city’s share of property tax and funds from the CSD (Community Services District).”/p>

For example, Temecula projected that under existing conditions (6 units with a population of 19) General Fund revenue would be $24,000 plus CSD funds of $2,000. The costs of $8,000 would result in a net gain to the city. By comparison, 68 units with a population of 220 wouldprovide $272,000 in General Fundrevenue plus $20,000 from the CSD with expenses projected to be only $86,000.

Mayor Edwards said, “Two things were key in my decision making process. 1) public safety must remain the toppriority, and 2) personal property rights must be protected for property owners who wish to build or expand. If we could not have provided for those two items, I would have had grave concerns about the feasibility of a possible annexation of that area.” She added, “If you are considering costs associated with a wildfire, there are no added costs to the city. The city, county, and state participate in reciprocal services at no increased cost to themunicipalities. So Cal Fire would simply continue to provide the same wildfiresupport services at no cost to the city.Our ratio of one police officer for every +/- 920 residents would not be negatively affected by adding 6 - 81 homes, and our park rangers and Citizens Action Patrolmembers would simply take in theannexation area.”

Edwards explained, “Once I wasconvinced that we could preserve that open space per our 1993 General Plan while protecting public safety and private property rights for the residents, it came down to the matter of the will of thepeople and local control. Government that is closest to the people is better suited to determine the will of those people. Over the course of the past two years, Temecula’s people have spoken by the thousands, demonstrating their desire to preserve that area as pristine hills - just as we have preserved the recentlypurchased 69 acres to the west and the 200+ acres bordering Roripaugh Ranch and the Johnson Preserve. All thingsconsidered, it was a clear decision for me.”

The public debate will continue as Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)conducts its own public hearings and case review - which is projected to be sometime in April. Will local control prevail in how these 4,997 southwest acres are managed or will the Riverside Board of Supervisors, comprised of elected officials from as far away as Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Banning, decide the issue of the Liberty Quarry project? If Temecula’s financial projections are correct, LAFCO should vote to approve annexation with noreservations. That would be a welcome relief to the thousands of residents that have mounted a highly successfulgrassroots campaign to protect their lifestyle, property values and health. Temecula’s annexation applicationspecifically prohibits mining operations in that area so a timely end to the battle is finally within the resident’s reach.

Senator Dennis Hollingsworth wants votes on this issue. Go to his website at:http://cssrc.us/web/36/contact_us.aspx Fill in your name and address (only his constituents can vote) then at “select an issue” click Liberty Quarry. The question is what will Hollingsworth do with the results? Comment at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it