Yucca Valley, CA– On 07/07/2011 at 2:23PM, 11 year old Jeffrey Matzek a resident of Landers, was the front passenger in a 1992 Honda Civic that his father was driving northbound on State Route 247 south of Terra Vista Road in Yucca Valley.
The driver swerved to avoid hitting a dog and overcorrected, causing the vehicle to swerve into the northbound lane where it was struck head on by a Burrtek disposal truck.
Paramedics responded and Jeffery was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics.
The driver was transported to an area hospital. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the collision.
We wish to extend our most sincere condolences to the Matzek Family. One could not even dream of how one can live with such a tragedy.
You might be interested
Sheriff M.A.I.T. Investigators Public Statement on Matzek Accident
Yucca Valley: Tragic Hit and Run Take Bike Rider
Nanny State Alert: Law Against “Social Hosting” 
Murder on the Mesa
Joseph Powers, 36 Yucca Valley
Identity of man Killed in Yucca Valley Released
Assemblyman Cook Denounces Bill for Denying San Bernardino County $16 Million for Jail Construction
Well time will tell if the facts of this story hold up to examination. Assuming it is true, it is no surprise considering the barbaric pathological corrupt nature of Yucca Valley and Morongo Basin.
Corrupt Judge Pro Temp Richard Crouter illegally dismissed the unleashed dog case against the politically connected clients of his business subcontractor, corrupt Attorney Mark S. Mahoney, and bigoted Yucca Valley Town Manager Mark Nauimi claims unleashed dogs are not a criminal matter despite the fact that Yucca Valley has a municipal code making unleashed/uncontrolled canines a misdemeanor crime.
Now an unleashed dog in Yucca Valley is reported as the initiating cause that killed an 11 year old boy. The death and unleashed animal occurred merely blocks from the Yucca Valley Animal Shelter.
Will Yucca Valley police even bother to find the dog’s owner so the owner can be held to account for allowing the dog to run unleashed?
Fritz do you actually think this is the proper venue for this?
A family has lost a son and you want to make the story all about you, your hate for the attorneys Crouter and Mahoney, and Town Manager Mark Nauimi.
Sometimes it is not about you. Sometimes it is what it is, a tragedy.
Have you no decency? Have you no shame? Have you no heart?
Again we send the Matzek family our sincere condolences and an apology for some of our user’s poor judgement.
Mr. O’Brien,
I attempted to edit the post within the 4 minute window to include some thoughts of condolence to the family Matzek. I apologize for being unsuccessful in that attempt. However, I am at a loss for words to express how sad I am about their loss; it would have been a feeble response to the magnitude of the grief.
Not only do I have a heart that aches about this young life needlessly wasted, I have a brain and mind as well.
This was indeed a tragedy, but that does not mean it does not have a traceable cause. The fact is that Yucca Valley, as a matter of course and corrupt policy, allows dogs to roam unleashed. The cause of this tragedy was an unleashed dog. (We do not yet know whether the boy was wearing a seat belt. We also do not know the breed of the animal.)
My comment is based on facts I personally know and that I personally know them does not exclude them from fair comment. The comment is about the putrid corruption which contributed to the death of a young son who had a future. He deserved protection from needless dangers, one of those, well known to civilized places, is policing of unleashed dogs allowed to run on the road and about the neighborhoods.
No, I have no shame whatsoever in pointing out those officials who refuse to enforce the laws of public nuisance especially when their actions are based on personal bias and allegiances to the few instead of the common welfare of all.
Dan O’Brien, you are the publisher who routinely authors sick voyeuristic mocking headlines about every child molestation case in the county. Dan O’Brien’s headlines about child molestation routinely describe *Dan O”Brien’s* exaggerated thoughts of the molester instead of the thoughts of the child. The headlines reveal more about Dan O”Brien’s personal mind being in vicarious connection with the mind of molesters than they do about the molesters themselves. None of Dan O’Brien’s headlines ever describes the horror of the child’s experience, nor do they add one scintilla to the community tools needed to abate molestations. They are simply gratuitous gutter indulgences for the truly profane and diseased in mind and spirit.
About people who lives are cut short by unusual events, Dan O’Brien proffers pathetic mean-spirited “humor” deprecating those who he believes contributed to their own demise by your personal definition of stupidity.
Despite numerous pleas and comments over the years from family members related to deceased persons that publisher Dan O’Brien’s comments are indecent for using their loss for his own sick humor and that of Cactus Thorns main readership, O’Brien continues the practice.
I’ll start taking lessons about decency, humanity, and civics from Dan O’Brien when hell freezes over.
How dare you advance your personal bull on the back of this child’s memorial.
I know for a fact, having had an escape artist in the body of an animal, the work of our animal control. Though it cost me countless money in impound costs and finally court fees as well, I have nothing but respect for the manner in which it was handled. Now enough of that. Let’s show some respect and if inclined say a prayer.
No uncontrolled animal is a non-public, i.e. solely personal, i.e. soley civil matter.
Each incident of uncontrolled animals is a public matter, and not a private matter.
A boy is dead and his father has been critically injured in part because a dog was uncontrolled and I believe his chances of being alive, and the safety of all citizens, would be appropriately greater if Yucca Valley placed proper priority on enforcement of uncontrolled dogs.
I did not realized someone would dare me to speak about the matter, but I accept the dare because I believe speaking out will help save lives and stop assaults in the future.
From the Town of Yucca Valley website:
“The staff strives to assure the protection, health and safety of animals and people through education and enforcement of regulations.”
“Melanie Crider, Animal Care and Control Manager ”
“In November, 2008, a Joint Powers Agreement (No. 08-1174) established the Animal Care and Control Joint Powers Authority for the construction, design, financing, maintenance and operation of animal shelter(s) in the unincorporated County areas in the Morongo Basin region and Town of Yucca Valley area.”
Perhaps if protection of *people* was first mentioned, instead of “care of animals” being first mentioned in most of the the titles and documents of the Division, the priority of Yucca Valley to protect people first and animals second would be more assured.
So, I take it you hate dogs and all dogs should be in escape proof locations or chained to keep you safe? maybe all dogs should be killed to make you feel safe?
maybe you should live in a perfect world?
I repeat you need help, stuff happens.
Richard,
Perhaps instead of worrying about the help you claim I need, you start thinking of how you might help the Matzek family if they open themselves to the community’s support.
If you persist in focusing upon me, instead of building a safer place where “stuff” does not happen as much, you will waste you time.
As for your other questions:
The answers to your questions are in the Yucca Valley municipal code: it is a crime for a dog to be free of control of the owner. As far as I can interpret, Yucca Valley specifically requires a leash or physical control of animals in public or on other’s property. Voice command does not cut it.
10.02.030: RESTRAINT AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS:
A. Duty To Restrain Dogs On Property: No person in the town of Yucca Valley owning, having possession, charge, custody or control of any dog shall permit or allow such dog to stray or run at large upon any public street, sidewalk, school ground, public park, playground, place of public assembly or any other public place or without the consent of the owner or person in control upon any private place or property.
By inference RUN AT LARGE is defined as:
ANIMAL AT LARGE: Any animal which is off the premises of its owner, custodian or caretaker and which is not under physical restraint by leash of size and material appropriate to the size and temperament of the animal and which is held by a person capable of restraining the animal, or is not otherwise physically restrained by some other device or instrument, the device or instrument shall not include voice control, eye control or signal control of the animal by any person.
I agree with the law of Yucca Valley, and the law is very similar to your proposition.
I enjoy the presence of most dogs and animals.
Fritz Koenig on July 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm said:
“Richard, Perhaps instead of worrying about the help you claim I need, you start thinking of how you might help the Matzek family if they open themselves to the community’s support.”
Fritz, take a dose of your own prescription. I don’t see any of your comments that might help the Matzek’s. Instead you attack and try to change the subject to create a diversion from your narcissistically derived rants about dogs. You point your finger forgetting that there are 3 more of your own pointing back at you.
That’s atypical for you to do. Not to be mean but are you ok? I think something else is going on because you are not the type to contradict yourself. You just don’t seem to be yourself lately. Good luck
Fritzy boy,,,you need help
What ever….
Fritz Koenig wrote:
Assuming it is true, it is no surprise considering the barbaric pathological corrupt nature of Yucca Valley and Morongo Basin.
“Corrupt Judge Pro Temp Richard Crouter illegally dismissed the unleashed dog case against the politically connected clients of his business subcontractor, corrupt Attorney Mark S. Mahoney, ”
You are now saying that Richard Crouter has committed a crime against the state. How was his dismissal illegal? According to Branson, saying that the Judge is corrupt is a crime.
Please back your accusations with substance. You normally don’t make accusations without informing us of the context of your complaint, but a bold criminal accusation against a judge. Wow! Though I never considered you a coward your much braver than I thought.
FWIW Knowing that you use a Mac as I do. I can verify the problem with editing recently posted reply’s. Word Press hangs for us Mac users and often you can not edit or add to your post even after trying to correct 10 seconds it will timeout loading the page.
My condolences to the family!
Paparazzi, don’t drag me into your comments. You wrote: “According to Branson, saying that the Judge is corrupt is a crime.”
Can you document where I posted this? The statement is bogus and erroneous.
Thanks BH, here ya go. Unedited reply to me calling Jerry Brown a CROOK..
Branson Hunter on February 12, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Paparrazi, Brown is a crook? Libel per se
Branson Hunter on February 13, 2011 at 7:18 am
Paparrazi, all politicians are NOT crooks.
As you know Jerry Brown isn’t coming after you for calling him a crook. Though accusing a person in a profession or business (or even a politician) a crook is not a good idea because under California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI 1701), punitive damages — if acting with malice, oppression, or fraud — may be sought. Don’t accuse any local businessmen or women, professionals, or politicians of a crime unless you can prove it because damages could be presumed even without any proof of special damages.
There is a vast difference between libel and libel per si. Damages must be proved in libel; in libel per se malice (intent to cause injury), oppression (conduct was despicable) and fraud (intentionally misrepresented) are distinguished from (libel) proving damages since reputational damages — allegations of serious criminal misbehavior — may be presumed.
So Branson, shouldn’t calling a Judge Corrupt and accusing him of performing illegal acts under the authority of law fall under the same correction for Fritz as when you admonished me?
Why didn’t you admonish Fritz when his comments are beyond a pejorative comment? Fritz has accused the Judge of a crime.
How’s that bogus and erroneous working eh!
Thanks Paparazzi for making this reappear. It’s first year law school Tort Law stuff. To accuse anyone of a crime, especially in one of the professions, may be slander or libel per se. Pretty ordinary information.
Look Paparazzi, your tango with Fritz is between you and Fritz. You don’t need me to fight your battles.You have an entire platoon of solders in here plotting to assassinate him (figuratively speaking of course).
You did ask for it to reappear and your welcome! Thanks for reaffirming my point as well regarding Fritz’s comments about the judge. “To accuse anyone of a crime, especially in one of the professions, may be slander or libel per se.”
Since you can’t find it within yourself to apologize after calling my statement “bogus and erroneous”
You might ask yourself. Why did I attack Papa and not Fritz. Fritz’s comment was even more belligerent. That silence leads me to believe that you are a disingenuous fellow.
Whatever…
Thats my line….. and it is pronounced WHAT…eveR. Hard R at the end.
Two words… Damn it don’t you habla Valley Speak?
He was too anxious! He use this horrible tragedy in support of a personal soap-box and when it was pointed out how insensitive that was he apologized for politicizing… sort of.
It seems Fritz is still trying to connect a court ruling by Judge Crouter down in Joshua to an unidentified dog running into the highway, in bad weather, up on the Mesa, causing a head on collision, the death of a father, his young son, and the dog? He seems to be accusing the Judge of favoritism in a case involving the Judge’s friend’s errant dog and saying that is somehow related to this accident. I would say that is “Fritz Style Ombudsman-ship” at about its worst.
Never mind that this particular dog was surly not involved in any case heard by Crouter. Duh!
Never mind that the dog might have been a frightened and homeless refugee, the result of a noisy 4th of July i.e. a negligent general public.
Never mind that the accident occurred at the outskirts of town and the owner may not reside within the Town’s jurisdiction as Fritz seems to think.
Never mind that the dog could have been lost by someone traveling through.
Never mind that coyotes could have some culpability or that any of a number of other predators could have been after the dog as well.
Never mind that this dog may not have even been a pet to begin with. Generations after generations of feral dogs have roamed the Basin since before old Shep was a pup.
Never mind either, that there could be hundreds of other explanations and that no one can possibility know the real reason that dog was in the wrong place at the wrong time. For the Ombudsman or anyone else to claim they know is nonsense and leveraging another’s misfortune to one’s own agenda is thoughtless.
So there you have it. It’s all thoughtless nonsense and Fritz is full of it.
Misquotes, smears, and out of context quotes lose the argument. Unfortunately, they seem to be usual weapons in these parts.
Fritz said, “A boy is dead and his father has been critically injured in part because a dog was uncontrolled and I believe his chances of being alive, and the safety of all citizens, would be appropriately greater if Yucca Valley placed proper priority on enforcement of uncontrolled dogs.”
That is a generalized statement about the overall non-enforcement practice of the Town raising the chances of tragedy. Nothing Fritz said even attempts to make a specific link between the Crouter’s dismissal and the dog involved in the deaths of the Matzek’s. Mike makes that falsehood up and then attempts to assign it to Fritz. (the sign of a lunatic is one who talks about himself in the third person)
If not outright fraud and “dirty tricks” it is yet another example of projection of inner thoughts out upon the world such that the impression of reality is distorted by the perspective of the observer and speaker.
Lord forbid a man who cites his own specific experience when attempting to explain the connection between the broader practice of Yucca Valley/Morongo Basin to allow dogs to run free and the large and obvious consequences of that practice.
As for Paparazzi’s swipes:
I did not accuse a Judge or Judge Pro Temp of committing a crime.
My silence should never be interpreted to concede any point raised on Cactus Thorns:
1) My free speech rights have been illegally abridged by local judges about some special topics under threat of the corrupt judiciary of San Bernardino sending me to jail. Fortunately, there are some honest and smart San Bernardino judges who uphold the Constitution in their courtroom regardless of pressure from their peers. Unfortunately, arriving in one of their courts is a roll of the dice.
Sometimes my liberty is important enough for me to take the risk of challenging the illegal restriction and sometimes it is not. Joisting with hostile idiots acting as a mob is sometimes not worth the risk. It can also be too damn boring because while the bloviating is intense, and oh man, is there a lot of it, the twisted logic is just too simpleton to be of interest.
The fact is that a trial judge can do whatever they want to do regardless of the Constitution as anyone appearing before Bert L. Swift knows so well.
2) Often as not, the responses to my posts are just …. too stupid and uneducated to bother.
A) Richard Crouter is not a judge, he is merely an attorney acting as a Judge Pro Temp. The Judicial Council has no power to discipline him. ( He was at one time a Judge, but apparently Bert L. Swift unseated him in a highly charged election of great controversy.)
B) “Legal” is composed of civil law ( compensation or actions required/prohibited) and criminal law ( jail or prison time ). Civil law includes the procedures of Court etc., which governs what a judge must do during a trial.
C) Not all illegal acts are crimes.
D) Judges act illegally every time they rule outside the boundaries of the law (procedures) whether that be civil or criminal code. Appeal courts of California rule that judges have ruled outside the law for one of every five cases brought to them. This high rate of reversal occurs even though the appellate rules massively favor affirming the decision of the trial judge. This is especially true in California that uses an unConstitutional (illegal) standard of appellate review related to the definition of “any” substantial evidence.
E) Branson’s citation is to CIVIL law. Therefore, Paparrazzi’s hyperventilation and histrionics about criminal accusations is not covered by the civil code he is now quoting that Branson introduced.
F) Branson did NOT say that calling a judge corrupt is a crime.
G) Calling a Judge corrupt is not a crime.
H) Corruption has numerous definitions of a large range. Without further refinement, the precise meaning is vague.
I) Being a corrupt judge is not necessarily a crime, nor even is it necessarily unlawful.
J) Paparazzi’s statement, “According to Branson, saying that the Judge is corrupt is a crime.” remains bogus and erroneous. Branson never said such a thing.
K) Paparazzi can not shoot straight without a Steadicam.
L) Judge Bert L. Swift is on record stating that after he took the bench in Joshua Tree, he found that he had fresh business and personal relationships with too many attorneys appearing before him in court—conflicts of interest.
He claims he demanded assignment to another courthouse so these conflicts of interested would not occur. Despite my condemnation of Bert Swift’s other actions as a judge, he is to be credited with taking that honorable and correct action, and even more so, he should be credited for making a very public statement about how a judge should handle just such conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, the San Bernardino County Rules of Court and other judges do not comport with the proper example Bert L. Swift set on this point.
M) I am not going to respond any more to Paparazzi’s miasma and pathetic attempts at “gotcha”. I am beginning to realize that when Paparazzi and Mike and others make such gross and bizarre distortions of logic, rationality, and reality there is no need to respond at all for they have proven themselves to be immune to persuasion. And I am betting that anyone who buys into their view is equally immune to exposition of facts or analysis.
And a few days ago, Cactus Thorns website started putting up one of those “CAPCHTA” challenge response things. Those things are security risks.
Someone asked me why I took Ombudsman off Cactus Thorns. Well, Dan had recently inserted another security risk into the pages served to posters, namely, detailed information about the type of computer, browser etc of each poster. Being as how I am under constant surveillance by a bunch of nuts, I decided I did not want to operate on a website that was so willing to publish details about me. Its all kinda like the seemingly unreadable code that is currently appearing in the upper left hand corner of every page served now. Who knows what the heck Dan is doing with that stuff.
As for the question about the trespasser on my *private driveway*, I smashed them with a lawsuit. Settled only days before the jury trial was to start. They paid me. They signed a contract under my terms to never again move a grain of sand on my properties.
All tolled, I suspect over $80,000 was wasted by both sides and the Superior Court of San Bernardino to settle with lawyers what could have been settled by simply sitting down in the neighborhood and working out something. But no, the gang of the neighborhood wanted to “teach” me the false lesson that they have all the power in the neighborhood and will use the Chimera power they actually had to rape my land and me and my family.
Well, I have learned a few lessons alright. One of them is that insurance company lawyers are more willing to listen to reason and the law than are my neighbors.
Fritz when you send a message to one of our posters expressing that you will no longer be posting… I expect you to keep your word. Good bye.
I will be banning you from further posts.
Your defense is just semantics. Everything that Branson said applied to my comments about Jerry Brown applies to your rant. I’ll point out something else that has not been address. You have assumed facts that are not in evidence. While it has been assumed that the DOG was the cause that has yet to be determined. Was speed a factor etc. I’m stopping there for the sake of the family. BTW you missed something when you posted this “(the sign of a lunatic is one who talks about himself in the third person)” Not only are you guilty of that, you answer yourself too.
Let’s face it Fritz, the real reason you aren’t going to respond to the Gotcha’s is because, well we gotcha! Your like a little kid that claimed he was the fastest kid on a bike, Then when the other kids raced him, he got his ass handed to him then said. I don’t want to play anymore. The readers are much more intelligent that you and your high a mighty elitist cronies can even handle. Maligning those that agree with sanity shows me that you are frightened at being beat at your manic posts. Like I said, something is wrong with you. My guess is it’s a painful thing going on in your life right now and I’m saddened to see you fall from your normally consistent views but now resort to getting humped in a dog pile CT.
I am the one that asked why you quick CT. The fact that you and I both use Macs was somewhat of a dichotomy. Mac users are typically from the liberal side although that is changing as those in the arts become a smaller percentage. If you think that if a reader knows that you have a Mac and that is jeopardizing your privacy you’ve beat me to the paranoia party with a front row seat.
I never read anything about the neighbors raping you, your family and land. Did you go in for counseling? Maybe that’s what I’ve been sensing, you were raped and are acting out on CT as a cry for help. Well Fritz, your friends are here to help!
Keep it coming. Sooner or later we’ll get you on the right track baby!
Thanks DanO. Fritz is a little out of control.
That time of the month!