Local Businessman Sued Baldwin Park Mayor and Council Members for Bullying Him

Council Member Ricardo Pacheco,
Council Member Raquel "Monica" Garcia &
Mayor Manuel Lozano (From left to right)

Yesterday, Greg S. Tuttle, local business owner, sued Baldwin Park's Mayor Manuel Lozano; Council Member Raquel "Monica" Garcia; Council Member Ricardo Pacheco; and Water Board Member Lanet Pacheco, wife of Ricardo, ("the Gang") in Santa Barbara Small Claims court. Tuttle sued them because in a response to a temporary restraining order (TRO) they filed against him and failed in back in March of 2016. The court said it'd mail out the decision, later.

The Gang filed the TRO because in January of 2016, Tuttle was present at the same conference that they were at in Santa Barbara. There, because Tuttle was at the same hotel and restaurant they went to, the Gang felt stalked and threatened. So, in March of 2016, they asked for the court to label Tuttle as a stalker and ban him from being at the same locations as them.

Waterboard Member Lanet Pacheco 

The court, however, stated that they didn't have enough evidence to suggest that he was a danger or threat. Furthermore the court went on to say that his investigative activities were part of his right to participate in the democratic process.

So, Tuttle then effectively countersued the Gang in small claims court in Santa Barbara. He alleged that the TROs were filed because the Gang wanted to punish him for investigating their corruption and to shut him up. Also, he alleged his right of privacy was violated because Ricardo, Lanet, and Garcia took his picture without his permission at a private restaurant and at the hotel.

Although the gang submitted hundreds of pages of briefing, which the court said was not allowed, the judge didn't read it before hand. As a result, they appeared to be unprepared for their hearing.

At court, Tuttle started with his opening argument. He explained to the court that he was suing on three claims: First Amendment retaliation, invasion to the right of privacy, and malicious prosecution. He explained his background that he was an activist that took a position against the City Council after the City Council tried to steal his business by attempting to condemn his property so that they could have it (and presumably resell it to developers).

He explained all the corruption he's exposed, including that the Mayor claims he goes on city trips and only pockets money in doing so.  He then went into detail about how Monica reads his divorce proceeding aloud in the council meetings so that he stops coming to them.

Tuttle then called his attorney Paul Cook as a witness. Ricardo and Lozano objected. The court overruled them, stating Cook was only a witness.

Cook explained that the City had a "pervasive pattern" of punishing people who spoke out against them. He explained how the court already told Lozano that people have the right to protest them, when the Mayor tried to get a restraining order against him. Cook explained how the City had to settle his First Amendment claim in federal court for arresting, strip searching, and jailing him.

Finally, Cook told the court the nature of the TRO and how Ricardo and Lanet alleged he was an imminent threat to obtain a TRO without being able to present a defense. He said that the Mayor didn't even appear to his own TRO hearing, even though he was so allegedly afraid of Tuttle.

Cook stressed the point about how violating it was to have a TRO, based on lies filed against a citizen. That "these people" [the Gang] attempt to destroy the reputation of "honest and hardworking" people who speak out against them. And how the City spend taxpayer money to hire a city attorney to do so, when the citizen can't afford an attorney of his or her own.

The Gang went next and told their side of the story. In general, they appeared to feel sorry for themselves.

For instance, the Mayor said that Cook had "erratic and emotionally unstable" behavior. Lozano alleged that this was a political attack, since Tuttle and Cook really worked for the enemy Council Member Cruz Baca. Lozano crowed about how the TRO worked, since Cook no longer goes to council meetings to criticize him.

Monica went next. She said in a long monologue about how Tuttle had "alarming" behavior and was a stalker. She kept complaining that he called her a "political whore" and a "political prostitute." Monica told the court that Tuttle knew everything she was doing in her bedroom. Monica said that Tuttle knows everywhere I am, and he posts it on the internet. She said she was tired of him calling him "Honey," and that it got to the point where a TRO had to be filed.

She slipped up and admitted this wasn't her first filing of a TRO against a man. She brought up Tuttle's divorce and said he had problems with his daughter. Therefore, he is a sexist and a woman hater and that she did the right thing to file the TRO. She said, nonetheless, she respects the First Amendment.

The judge asked Lanet and Ricardo to only speak if they weren't going to repeat what wasn't already said. They said they had new facts to add.

Lanet stated that Cook was destroying their lives by publishing blog posts. She said that her daughter inquired whether it was true whether her father was really a rapist. Then she talked about how their lives are falling apart at the local Catholic church, because Tuttle arranges senior citizens to protest them with corruption signs. She said, "Nobody should live like this."

Ricardo stated that the TRO was necessary. He said that Tuttle only won the case because he went "judge shopping." The first judge agreed with Ricardo that the TRO needed to issue. Unfortunately, the second judge "didn't see things the same way."

Pacheco then stated that Cook accused his wife of being an illegal and that they had to explain that it wasn't true to their daughter. Then he accused Tuttle of organizing a senior group of coming to his home and stalking him and slashing their car tires. Ricardo said they're always being watched and followed, and that he organizes seniors to protest him at the church. Pacheco also stated that he needed to file a TRO because Tuttle said "He'd have him in handcuffs by the end of the year." Pacheco ended by stating that "This is not what this country is about."

The entire hearing appeared to be something that should've been more on Judge Judy than in superior court. The court said it had heard all the evidence and that it would need to time to render a decision. Tuttle told the court that, "This isn't about the money. Even if I won $1 that would be alright. It's just not right what these people are doing."

[Updated on Feb. 27, 2017: This article has been heavily revised to remove legalise. Thanks to my talented editor for the suggestion.]

Your Court Briefing

Here's your court briefing.

February 23, 2017

On Feb. 23, 2017, Greg S. Tuttle will be in small claims court for his First Amendment retaliation case against Mayor Manuel Lozano, Council Member Ricardo Pacheco, and Council Member Raquel "Monica" Garcia. The background of this case arose in March 2016 last year. The three of these public officials sued to obtain a temporary restraining order against Tuttle, a local businessman, for investigating their activities on their city funded holiday in Santa Barbara. Tuttle won. The court told the three of them to grow up and reminded them that Tuttle had First Amendment rights. Now, Tuttle countersues.

Please come join us if you can. It's at the Santa Barbara Superior Court at 01:15PM.

March 7, 2017 09:00AM

On March 7, 2017, oral arguments will be heard for Casas v. City of Baldwin Park. In This Case, Casas is arguing that the Court of Appeals should create a new rule of law - that states: If a public agency claims it doesn't have records, the public agency has to have the right person sign off that that is true. Given that recently, a number of public agencies are not wanting to release records that expose corruption, this is perhaps my most important case of the year.

Please join us if you can. The case will be heard at the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown, Los Angeles.

Briefing complete in Casas second appeal

Briefing has been complete in another appeal by Casas. In This Case, the court denied attorney's fees, even when the law says that an attorney get his fees if he wins against the City in a Public Records Act case. I won against the City three more times, after the first trial. So, briefing for this case was completed on February 12, 2017.

Oral argument will be scheduled most likely in April or May.


Buying fish

Now that I've completed some big assignments, I'm going to buy myself some aquarium fish. I'll report back to you which ones I get.

That's your court briefing.

PS: My cat Trial says "Hi" to everyone. 

How Identity Theft Enables Voter Fraud

On the news, there have been two deportations related to identity theft, one in particular has erupted in mass protest, against a mother who has been deported from Arizona. This article, though, explains why identity theft is destroying our democracy. In short, identity theft is required to commit massive election fraud, otherwise known as ballot stuffing.

The American news stations and papers have been saying there's no proof of election fraud. Nothing could be more wrong. In this short article, I'm going to prove to you how it's done and that it is happening in our so-called democratic country called the United States.

The first step in election fraud is that you need bodies, living or dead. The second step is harvesting. The third step is maximizing the effect. Here's the recipe book for election fraud.

First, find bodies. There are two sources for these bodies. Dead people and non-citizen immigrants (I'm not covering dead people, but CBS Los Angeles covered the story here. CBS uncovers dead people voting.)

Let's talk about the undocumented voting. An aside, historically, in New York, the Irish and Italian immigrants were used by the Tamney Hall group, most infamous one being Boss Tweed. He bribed judges and officials to naturalize as many immigrants as possible. Now, it's being done with undocumented Latinos, generally.

After the bodies are found, then you need to assign them a social security number. These are usually stolen or bought off the black market.

So, last week, a Mexican mother was deported under Trump, for identity theft. Obama, although he knew about it, didn't deport her. Protests erupted. A number of groups cried foul. You can read about it here. Mexican mother deported from America (What these groups didn't tell you is how identity theft is destroying our country.)

Even the New York Times had to admit that one case of election fraud was discovered. For it, the green card holder was convicted for 8 years. See story here. Illegal Voting Gets Texas Woman 8 Years in Prison, and Certain Deportation.

Then, after, a harvester, someone who collects ballots, registers the undocumented person with the alleged citizenship identity. It's also good if the undocumented person could have the whole family steal social security numbers. See this Brownsville, Texas story where the woman received 6 months for committing absentee voter fraud. Brownsville absentee voter fraud

Then, you multiply the effect by millions. Social security already knows that at least one million undocumented people are committing identity theft. IRS Failed to Notify Taxpayers of Theft of One Million Social Security Numbers It's estimated that it could be really up to 4 to 10 million undocumented stealing American identities. The incredible fact is that federal law makes it illegal to discover who stole your identity, meaning federal law makes it illegal to track down undocumented people stealing identities.

The final step is to create a black list of these undocumented voters, register their stolen identities to an address where harvesters can fill out their ballot, and presto: you can rig an election and defraud the American people.

This article is non-partisan. The Republicans, according to Greg Pallast, stole the Bush v. Gore election in 2000 with a different type of election rigging. Pallast explains how. It's a form of not ballot stuffing but ballot blocking. (In fact, it's my personal view that today's American outrage over politics can all be traced to the Supreme Court's poor decision to steal the election on George W. Bush.)

To be sure, the solution will not be as easy as to just deport people. The solution to this type of problem is transparency. The American people need to know in detail what's happened and happening regarding ballot stuffing. Then, we as a people, have to collective arrive at a solution for all those who have defrauded us.

Joseph Stalin once said, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

Well, I think Stalin was wrong. "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who stuff them decide everything."

PS: Have you noticed a lot of this identity theft comes from Texas, particularly Brownsville? Where does our Mayor and Monica Garcia come from? That's right: Brownsville. Pacheco is from El Paso, Texas. It appears they may have learned the trade in Texas and brought it to California.

On Clear Thinking

Discus - King of Freshwater Fish (My favorite btw)
Copyright Tom Bailey 

I had breakfast this week with a friend, and he shared with me how he's been reflecting on how important it is in sports that one just get into the zone, into the zen, meaning, one needs to execute without thinking about it. I think I have two tips for better thinking. 1) Throw out junk in your life and 2) exercise for long periods of time.

I feel like these last two weeks, my thinking has been a lot clearer. It's probably because I've been clearing out junk in my life.

In the last two weeks, after working a few hours, I would go home and clear out my garage. I didn't have that much stuff (at least compared to other people I know), but it's been an accumulation of things from age 16 until 30. That's 14 years of stuff. (I wrote a blog post about this earlier - On Simplicity.) I threw 80 percent of it out, which resulted in four more boxes of books and three trash bins worth of stuff. In total, I've donated now 10 boxes of books.

Ridding myself of my possessions really made me feel better, lighter, and somehow cleared my head. People don't tell you that having junk actually has a negative costs, because it clouds your thinking somehow. So, when you think an item has potential value, keep in mind, it also has a negative value just for having it.

Secondly, I've been running an extraordinary amount. And that's helped a lot, as well. Walking and running for long periods of exercise also seems to clear the mind.

One of my most influential teachers in life was my microbiology professor, and I would always see him run around campus around 10PM to 12:00AM. Coincidentally, he also was one of the most published professors at the university. It's amazing how many thoughts just pop into your head, when you exercise for such long periods of time.

So, that's my insights for this week. If you get stuck on a problem, exercise more and throw out more junk. It helps heaps. And even though doing so won't turn you into an Einstein, I'm convinced that it helps one perform at one's most optimal level.

The fish I posted in this article is called a discus; I used to have one. I would like a fish tank full of them, but seeing they come from the Amazon Rainforest, the water has to have acidic pH. Here, in Baldwin Park, the tap water is polluted and highly alkaline. So, they die. So, without a reverse osmosis unit, it's impossible to own these fish.

In any event, I've never seen a fish swim so gracefully and with so much calm. And in my head, that's what clear thinking looks like. Grace and calm. 

Is Baldwin Park's Mayor, Manuel Lozano, Undocumented?

Mayor Manuel Lozano

Mayor Manuel Lozano of Baldwin Park may be undocumented. If he is, should he be deported? Well, first, he may need to serve time for his little bankruptcy stunt.

What did Mayor Lozano get caught for this time? Well, after getting his bankruptcy file, I've discovered that the Mayor's social security number has been issued under a temporary worker's visa, entitled California SSN 02. Also, the social security number was published in 1974. But one of Lozano's alleged birthdays is on December 2, 1958.

But the Mayor's from Brownsville and he wasn't born in 1974. So, why does he have a California social security number?

In short, the question is why doesn't the Mayor have a normal social security number from Texas? Is it because he's undocumented?

Also, how did he get this California social security number?

According to the Brownsville, Herald, published on February 15, 1972, Federal authorities found that Manuel Lozano was NOT a U.S. Citizen but a Mexican Citizen. The question is whether Lozano has ever naturalized.

What is also proven is that the Mayor filed bankruptcy with this social security number. If the number was taken as a part of identity theft, it makes him a party to bankruptcy fraud. (It's a well known fact that social securities numbers can be purchased off the black market in California.) Perhaps, this is the reason he was whining to everyone I partly published his social security number, though it was done by accident at the time.

Now, I know why he's nervous about the entire affair. (In any event, the 10th Circuit said that activists can publish public officials' social security number.)

In general, the Manuel Lozano has proven himself to be an unlawful person. Let's not forget how he violated the First Amendment, not once, but twice, but thrice. Remember when he tried to a get a temporary restraining order against the hardworking businessman, Greg Tuttle. He also tried to get one against me. Both times, the court told him we have a First Amendment Right to criticize him. (He still doesn't get it.) Perhaps, that's why he failed to appear to his last hearing, because of the shame he suffered from the first one.

On top of that, he had me arrested and jailed for leafleting him at the park. Then, he cost the City $67,500 for his bad judgment. Once again, he's poor judgment reflects more of how criminals, and not normal people, make decisions.

And you want to know why he's such a bad decision maker? Because, it looks like he's a felon from Brownsville, Texas. There's  Russian proverb. If you're born foolish, you likely grow up and die foolish. This is apt to Manuel Lozano.

To be honest, and this doesn't reflect my views on other undocumented people, I'd have no problem if Trump prosecuted and convicted Lozano. Afterwards, he needs to return back from where he came. Given his past history, for the protection of our people and the Mexican people, he may even need to be sent to Antartica. Better yet, Putin can have him in Siberia.

Given his previous record, this is because Lozano is not your typical immigrant, who works hard and is trying to make an honest living. I mean, he got his house, which he doesn't even live in, for 50% off from an attorney. What's up with that?

If you're a conservative activist, I request that you do more research on this case. Manuel Lozano may be your perfect poster child for your agenda.

PS: I'm willing to apologize and retract this article, of Manuel Lozano provides proof of his naturalization from a Mexican citizen to an American one. 

Julain Casas Ends Manuel Carrillo's and Baldwin Park's Non-Profit Corporation

Manuel Carillo aka
Manuel Carrillo Jr. 

After Jualin Casas's (a resident and former employee of Baldwin Park) lawsuit, which is still pending, Manuel Carrillo killed his non-profit corporation the Baldwin Park Community Center Corporation and washed his hands clean of it. In March of 2016, the Baldwin Park Community Center Corporation (BPCCC) has now been dissolved.

Although Rose Tam is listed as the service agent, let's not forget that Carrillo has been running the non-profit as president since the early 90's. It's most likely that he changed the name to Rose Tam, the City's Finance Director, so that people later wouldn't be able to track the nonprofit back to him. (Well - too bad, Casas is not letting that happen.)

The lawsuit filed by Casas alleges that Carrillo was using the non-profit to hold sham events in the name of poverty stricken children and enriching themselves by buying Walmart gift cards. Tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, have been laundered by Carrillo through the BPCCC. The event held annually was called Santa Clothes.

Baldwin Park City Manager
Shannon Yauchtzee

To counter the death of their non-profit, Mayor Lozano and Council Members Ricardo Pacheco and Raquel Monica Garcia ordered the City Mananger Shannon Yauchtzee to start a new non-profit. Shannon Yauchtzee incorporated the Baldwin Park Charitable Relief Foundation on August 24, 2015. (The Mayor and his friends, apparently, didn't want Carrillo screwing it up again - although they apparently gave him a big raise for all the stress he endured.)

According to the Casas lawsuit, Carrillo and the City were fronting the non-profit as a mechanism for bribery. The money would come out washed in the form of gift cards at the end of the year. Citizens wonder if the Yauchtzee non-profit has been set up for the same purposes. What is clear, is that the Mayor and the council members vote on the non-profits activities at the council chambers, as well as city business. (Doesn't it sound like an alter-ego, once again?)

In any event, it's a victory for the people to have killed the BPCCC, an illegal non-profit that's been harming the public since 1974; that's 42 years. I end with the words of the song they played at my high school graduation: Good Riddance.

Prosecutor Investigates Council Member Ricardo Pacheco for Corruption

Ricardo Pacheco,
Council Member of Baldwin Park

Yesterday, the Los Angeles County District Attorney called Baldwin Park Council Member Ricardo Pacheco to tell him he's under investigation and that representation is recommended. The charge being investigated is called conflict of interest. In short, a conflict of interest violation means that Pacheco voted as an elected official to benefit himself.

Here's the most common example of a conflict. Johnny Appleseed is the mayor of Apple City. Appleseed also owns an apple juice company called Super Juice Incorporated. At a council meeting, Appleseed votes that Super Juice will be the sole provider of all apple juice to all employees of Apple City. Although it can't be proven one hundred percent, the vote is a conflict, because Appleseed has a duty to the citizens of Apple City to make rationale and informed decisions on their behalf, not decisions that would profit Appleseed himself. Hence, that's a conflict of interest.

Here, Pacheco voted to award a Baldwin Park contract to Gentry Brothers Inc. for $1.5 million. What he didn't inform the council was that he worked with Sid Mousavi of AA&E also known as Infrastructure Engineering and Gentry Brothers in a former project with the City of South El Monte. In the City of South El Monte, the former city manager and former mayor, both accused of taking bribes, hired Ricardo Pacheco as a part time project administrator.

It appears that Pacheco was financially motivated when he cast his vote for Gentry Brothers in the $1.5 Million contract, because he supervised Gentry Brothers work in South El Monte and approved their work. So, now he's being investigated by a prosecutorial agency.

Being nervous and upset, Pacheco then voted that the City should pay for his defense attorney's fees. In short, even though Pacheco did something illegal and got caught, he wants us to pay for his defense. If any of you are thinking, something doesn't sound right about voting on his own attorney's fees, you are correct. (Good legal thinking.)

Pacheco voting on his own attorney's fees is another conflict of interest. He has a vested financial interest in that vote. That financial interest is that he doesn't have to spend thousands (which he should be spending) to hire an attorney. Therefore, he violated another conflict of interest.

On top of that, even though it was pointed out to the City Attorney's law firm that Pacheco's vote is a conflict of interest, the attorney did not point it out to the city council members and mayor. Did he not point it out, because he also makes a profit out of it to get three votes? (It's definitely another potential conflict of interest.)

The main point of this article is to show that these people think they can spend taxpayer money like it's their own. The problem with our current democracy is that at some point, they'll run out of our money.

[Update: One document tending to prove Pacheco's conflict of interest vote. The second photo is of an invoice that proves that Pacheco was in the process of approving the South El Monte project.]

Univision and the Tribune both wrote an article. Univision quotes me in the article as saying that The links are here.

Univision Article

San Gabriel Valley Tribune article

1. Top half shows that Pacheco voted for Gentry Brothers
2. Bottom half shows that Pacheco was involved in the South El Monte
discussions with Gentry Brothers when he worked there as a
project administrator. 

On Being Radically Generous

A Tiffany stain glass depicting generosity 

This week, I've been searching and struggling on what to write. The news seems to be the same every day; it can be boiled down to two themes. President Donald Trump did something outrageous. Americans are angry.

And I really wondered if I should be commenting on Donald Trump's Muslim ban, his order to build the Great Wall of America, or his Supreme Court nominee. Then, I wondered if I should write about Baldwin Park and all the more corruption I've been observing. In the end, at least today, I decided I want to write on my own spiritual journey and the call to radical generosity.

The topic began like this. Currently, I'm researching the machinery of off shore accounts. How they work; who uses them; and the cloak-and-dagger operation of it all. In some ways, I'm fascinated. In some ways, I'm disgusted. In some ways, I feel like a muppet.

Why is it that the super rich don't pay taxes, but we do? And then, the taxes we pay, just go to the super rich, whom learned to skim it and stuff it an offshore account. The whole thing was making me angry.

(I think if you stop and think about it, and you pay taxes; think about the fact that a certain percentage of your labor is going to public official thieves that have lied to you and told you it was for another purpose - animal control, business licenses, or zika virus control.)

Around the same time, I was reviewing my own personal finances and thought how nice it'd be if I never had to worry about paying bills again. And for some reason, thinking about it, made me worry some.

On a car ride, I asked my mentor what to do. I told him I was kind of worried about it all. He went on to say, we all have such worries. That surprised me that he had those worries too, because he always seems calm to me.

The issue plagued me. I didn't think it was right to worry about it, because after all, as a Christian, I should have faith in a God, who created the universe and has any and all resources at his disposal. On the other hand, there was my reality of it all.

While I was running at my sacred hills, where the owls, coyotes, and the skunk have all become familiar with me, I heard the soft voice in my head make a suggestion. Why not be radically generous?

Oh, I thought. Not this again. I've been through this once in my life before.

When I first started practicing law, I wasn't making anything. Then out of nowhere - boom! I got my first paycheck. Then there was the one Christmas I couldn't afford to buy gifts, and I felt so sorry for myself. But God was truly faithful, as the month after, a handsome sum of money came through. And although all of it makes for a good yarn, I can't say it was a pleasant journey to live from paycheck to paycheck, all the while committing myself to be generous to a number of causes.

In the end, I concluded, however, that greed, this fear that there's not enough, is at core of all the modern evils of this world. No wonder, the Scriptures say, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Tim. 6:10).

I can't support living the way these people do. Therefore, I decided that I really should be radically generous this year. One definition of radical means, "Thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms." Another definition states, it means to be "fundamental."

It's scary for me. I'm not sure what's going to happen. I'm not sure if this going to come back to haunt me.

Nonetheless, I'm reminded of a promise verse that I've repeated to myself since I was young. It goes: "I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread." (Psalms 37:25).