Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  29 Feature  >  Current Article

Rolling Snake Eyes on Project Phoenix

By   /   December 29, 2013  /   3 Comments

    Print       Email

snake-eyes-dice1I got to tell you I am growing fond of Democrat State Attorney General Kamela Harris as she just Bitch Slaps 29 Palms City Attorney in her December 23rd Opposition Brief and December 24th Request  for Judicial Notice.

Hung with his own Petard, Anthony P. Munoz is made out as a complete fool.

I am going to let you read the briefs yourself so you don’t get the idea that I am trying to convince you of some untruth.

Have fun its well worth the time to read this stuff.

It is my belief, you will find as I do that they guy needs to be fired… The city is going to lose and it is going to lose badly.

Opposition Brief

Request- Judicial Notice

 

Likes(2)Dislikes(0)

Incoming search terms:

  • snake eye dice
    Print       Email

About the author

Dan OBrien

Publisher

Cactus Thorns has been online in one form or the other since 2001. What started as a personal blog documenting the corruption and lack of Due Process of the 29 Palms Community Development Department has turned into over these many years into a hugely popular Independent Alternative News Media Outlet. We have partnered with other media including The Desert Star Weekly, Joshua Tree Star, other blogs, indie media and an incredible staff of volunteer Reporters, Commentators and Opinion Makers to create one of the most read, honest and dependable alternative to the Local traditional Media services in the country. Thanks to you the reader we are in the 5% of most read sites in the World.

3 Comments

  1. Thanks to DanO for putting these documents up. There are well over 165 pages of litigation and documents contained in the Attorney General’s opposition motion. Below is a condensed highlighting of the State’s argument throwing out what it considers a frivolous law suit.

    Five council members mid-year gave Munoz a favorable job performance rating. The only criteria must have been how efficient he is at "generating legal fees" from taxpayers.The City Council is the larger problem. Would you run a business whereas your legal counsel was costing you tens of millions of dollars WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT --BUT FOR MORE LEGAL FEES. Munoz advised the city to incur a debt to the tune of about tens of millions of dollars in bad bond debt. Time to give three lame duck council members the boot, and dump P. Munoz

    The Attorney General alleges that the 29 Palms Successor Agency may not have given the Oversight Board accurate information in connection with key decisions. Further, bond counsel, Rutan & Tucker and P. Munoz, urged the new Oversight Board to approve questionable tactic to circumvent the Dissolution Law.

    The City has paid, or is committed to pay, more than $1 million in fees to Rutan & Tucker just for bad bond advise.

    The AG writes, “The only issue properly before this Court is whether DOF abused its discretion in disallowing two items on the City's Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules. Because these were presented with no contract, no payee, and no payment due within the covered time period, the DOF properly disallowed the items.”

    The AG has put into the record that the city has unclean hands. Now we have bond attorney Munoz, Rutan & Tucker, five council members, a highly-paid consultant turned city employee (Matthew McCleary), and a city manager beating their chests by counting their chickens before they hatch, while the eggs have rotted in the shell.

    The AG writes that Matthew McCleary compounded the problem is compounded by misinformation and occasional mischaracterizations of evidence they cited. The AG also writes: Bonds are Not "Recognized Obligations"

    The AG writes that the Projects Phoenix projects had ever gotten past the concept stage, and that the City worked feverishly to expand Project Phoenix to utilize the funds it had obtained by issuing bonds, in order commit funds on hand before the state decides it needs 19 to raid the cities for more money".

    The only agreement the city had was to agreement with itself.

    What’s interesting is reading the AG footnotes in terms of all the bad and erroneous legal advise Munoz and Rutan & Tucker gave the city and the Successor Agency.

    Thus far, Munoz and Rutan & Tucker have been paid over a million dollars regarding the bond issues, cites the AG. It’s obvious the city has accomplished absolutely nothing positive or of benefit for the city or its taxpayers.

    The AG writes, “Petitioner refuse to recognize that if something is legally forbidden—especially to a public entity—it cannot be done.

    The AG writes, “PETITIONERS HAVE NOT JOINED INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.” Indispensable parties being other local agencies whom have an interest in the litigation.

    Likes(2)Dislikes(0)
  2. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    Petitioners may not invoke the impairment of contract provisions of the federal or state constitutions to challenge DOF's application of the Dissolution Law to the ROPS III submission. Generally, an agency has no standing to invoke a constitutional impairment of contracts challenge to a state law which it is otherwise duty-bound to enforce or abide by. {Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1, 5-6; County of Alameda v. Janssen (1940) 16 Cal.2d 276, 284; see also Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 952, 957 [noting that municipal corporations acting in legislative governmental capacity have no standing to raise the defense of impairment of contract in opposition to acts of state legislature].) Petitioners are political subdivisions of the State, as was the former RDA. Accordingly, Petitioners have no standing to challenge enforcement of the Dissolution Laws on this basis.

    Likes(1)Dislikes(0)
  3. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    Pages 24-25.....

    It cannot be said that as a practical matter that the Oversight Board represented the (affected taxing entities) ATEs and therefore they are bound by the Oversight Board's approved all of the disputed ROPS and the administrative agreement. After all, the same firm has advised both the City and the Oversight Board throughout, and has profited handsomely. The law firm (Rutan & Tucker) has acted as Twentynine Palms' city attorney at all times relevant to this litigation. It is identified as "bond counsel" in connection with the bond issuance. (PE p. 682.) It advised both the City and the Oversight Board in connection with the disputed Administrative Agreement. (Oversight Board minutes, RE Exh. 18, pp. 1 and 3; Exh. 19, p. 2 agenda item 4.) It urged the new Oversight Board to approve this questionable tactic to circumvent the Dissolution Law......

    ....The City has paid, or is committed to pay, more than $1 million in fees to Rutan & Tucker for the above services.

    Likes(2)Dislikes(0)
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248