You are here:  Home  >  Feature  >  Current Article

The House of Cards collapses as 29 Palms prepares for Court

By   /   January 1, 2014  /   6 Comments

    Print       Email

AB-015-0174It is obvious the local paper husbands a complete bunch of morons and propagandists. Unable to deviate from the party line, their recent glowing article about the revival of Project Phoenix was, I assume, based upon their heads stuffed so far up the ass of the city, they were unable to get oxygen to the brain, and therefore could be considered a delusional rant. (see DOF answer in opposition)

The City of 29 Palms and the local fish wrapper, would like to have you think the issues they raise in their Petition for a Writ of Mandate against the State Department of Finance and The legislature are new. Well, they are not new and in a recent decision by the Court of Jurisdiction, the City of San Diego was denied a similar petition for a Writ of Mandate.

The Court found the City Of San Diego failed on the very same issues and in the very same manner the City of 29 Palms is presently attempting to foist to the Court.

I wonder at what point will the City Council realize they do not have one chance in a million to win against the state based upon the arguments that hack Munoz has presented to the Court. Everyone of the issues he raised has been ruled upon in favor of the state in the scores of other cases that have gone before Department 34 of the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento.

Read how his arguments crumble in this recent Case No.:34-2013-80001410 City of San Diego v.  Ana J. Matosantos

I think you will agree that San Diego brought up many of the very same issues. The Court ruled so decisively in denying those issues it is a fools errand to continue this folly.

thumbs_43061-waxing-act.jpg.690x368_q100_cropSo arrogant and brash has the City attorney been in his violations of law and ethics he risks not only the treasury of the city but his and others liberty and freedom. The obvious intent from reading the recent opposition brief by the Department of Finance that the continued prosecution of this Writ will lead the DOF actually asking for the Attorney General to investigate for criminal charges of  City Officials and the Law Firm of Rutan and Tucker. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

Instead of dreaming of Project Phoenix, those Councilors past and present and officials that had a direct hand in this possible Fraud against the State of California should be circling up their wagons with their own Legal representation, unrelated to Rutan and Tucker.

The next couple of weeks are going to be a real eye opener for those who thought we at Cactusthorns were out of touch. I personally will be planning an appointment to have my ass waxed so it will be baby soft, so that when upon the denying of the writ is made public, I can offer a big old cheek to the Council for placing their collective lips to it for a kiss.

San Diego v. Matosantos


    Print       Email

About the author

Dan OBrien


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.


  1. The AG has come about as close to calling Patrick Munoz and his co-conspirator, Mathew McCleary (former consultant to the city, now ranking city official), LIARS and shyster as I've seen...

    The AG writes that likely that Munoz mislead the Oversight Board with inaccurate information; that Munoz urged the new Oversight Board to approve questionable tactic to circumvent the RDA Dissolution Law; that the city (officials, council members, terminated city manager, McCleary) have "unclean hands" (that means that they are dirty & worked outside the law, and were sneaky bastards); that Matthew McCleary compounded the problem by misinformation and occasional mischaracterizations of evidence they cited; and that Project Phoenix is a fraud.

    Many of us at Cactusthorns have been writing and evidencing the exact same thing for three years. City Hall as well as five drsyrf council members have served themselves and the usual con-artist cronies. They have and are now pursuing decadent, excessive, and wasteful spending on a grand scale.

    These hapless fools not worthy to direct traffic for a tiny parade of high-stepping cockroaches down Adobe Rd. They have turned their backs on public safety, and frittered away huge sums of property tax money intended for fire and public safety on pet projects of questionable value.

    • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

      The conflict that we continued to tell the public of, that being Rutan and Tucker was the attorney of all four parties (the City, the RDA, the Successor Agency and ultimately the Oversight Board) teeter on criminal, as well as the obvious conflict of interests of all agencies.

      The City Attorney has acted in a totally unethical manner and has been noticed and put on notice by the AG

      I can only hope that Munoz is disbarred and at least similarly treated to the same public humiliation that he treated others in this town who fought his alleged illegal activities.

      I'd love seeing that son of a gun loose everything and be relegated to holding a Tin Cup at the Dollar Tree front door. He deserves it.

  2. Mark Clemons Mark Clemons says:

    this whole PP / Munoz and the boys thing has a very RICO stench,
    Branson what do you think about a RICO private attorney general.

    Both statutes [RICO and Clayton Act] bring to bear the pressure of “private attorneys general” on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate; the mechanism chosen to reach the objective in both the Clayton Act and RICO is the carrot of treble damages.

    [Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates]
    [107 S.Ct. 2759, 483 U.S. 143, 151 (1987)]
    [bold emphasis added]

    In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.

  3. Mark, I have no comment on the RICO question.

    I will be open with you and say the state bar a couple of weeks said that most likely a bar complaint against an attorney would fail if not brought by a "client."

    Are those whom live within the sphere of influence, or within city limits, or those that pay property tax that go to County and directed back to the city, considered a client?

    The state bar advises that for a final determination one has to file a complaint and they will evaluate it for standing as a client.

    Do I think a taxpayer's suit against the city is meritorious? Yes. Given all the money the city has been through on non-priority special projects -- signs and special friends that always get the bacon... think it is meritorious.

    I guess I should say again that do not have a bar car and therefore cannot give legal advise. But I can offering an opinion.

  4. Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

    I have been researching a complaint to the Grand Jury to seek indictments. It seems that this situation may fit their determination requirements.

    I am waiting for the decision by the judge in Sacramento before I waste the time of the Grand Jury.

    Should this matter turn against the city on January 20, 2014. I will forward a citizens complaint to the grand jury naming a whole host of individuals which range from city staff, the council in place at the time, and more importantly the Oversight Board that has, as the Attorney General opines, failed miserably in their duties.

    Last but not least will be Munoz and McCLeary as well as Warne.

    Time will tell as will the judges decision.

  5. Mark Clemons Mark Clemons says:

    From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering

    “RICO employs broad definitions to sweep a wide variety of enterprise criminal activity into its purview. One of the original goals of RICO was to eliminate organized-crime families. However, because Congress could not legislate against specific persons or families, it was forced to use broad language to define racketeering and organized crime. The far-reaching language of the statute has subjected a wide range of criminal defendants to RICO's penalties. The typical RICO defendant is far from the stereotypical violent mobster. A RICO defendant can be anyone who uses a business in any way to commit two or more of the many racketeering offenses.”

    “When Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq.) in 1970, its intent was to mount an all-fronts attack on the infiltration of legitimate businesses by organized criminal enterprises. The RICO Act provides criminal and civil remedies, which are designed to imprison racketeers and to destroy the financial base of Organized Crime. Since the act's passage, however, its civil provisions have been applied more often than its criminal provisions and have generally been used against businesses and other organizations that are not dominated by organized crime. Plaintiffs have discovered that the act's broad language allows its use in cases involving Malpractice and "garden variety commercial fraud." Critics of this use of civil RICO have called for congressional reform.”


You might also like...


Questions for the Phab Project Phoenix Pholks

Read More →
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248