Mr. Lloyd White, as we’ve often noticed over the years, you seem very confused, causing you to indulge in fallacy and error.
There’s been a lot of Public outcry in the last couple weeks regarding Beaumont City Councilman Lloyd White’s treatment of Judy Bingham and his recent Letter to the Editor of the Record Gazette: http://www.recordgazette.net/o…
One Citizen called White’s letter: “A classic example of dragging a red herring across the debate.”
Lloyd White, Nancy Carroll, and Steve Mehlman are ‘Team Castaldo’. They use dirty attacks, fake names – a practice that has gone on too long in politics.
But the Citizens are not their political enemies; and that’s the problem. When the Government attacks the Citizens it’s a big red flag that the Government is corrupt.
After the 2015 Raids the drumbeat was “it’s over” .. “we’ll never know” And then the City Council comprised of Mayor Brenda Knight, Councilmen Lloyd White, Mark Orozco, and Mike Lara, started attacking the Citizens.
Remember Mark Orozco reading a script saying that ‘Citizens wanted to burn the City down’.
Judy Bingham and every other Citizen of Beaumont would love to ‘go on with their lives’. Contrary to what Lloyd White thinks; government corruption is an epidemic in this State and I have many other government agencies to audit.
But I insist that every Elected and Appointed Official go to prison for their participation in Federal Municipal Bond Fraud and Embezzlement. If they don’t go to prison they will never stop. Lloyd White has proven that.
Is there one person out there that expected Lloyd White to flip?
The Plea Agreements prove that the State will not prosecute, but embezzling from bonds is a Federal Crime, so we are preparing Request to the S.E.C. and Federal Attorney General’s Office to Indict on a Federal Level.
Beaumont Staff and Council can degrade us and publicly ridicule us all they want. It doesn’t dissuade us at all, it just exposes to the Public that the City is still corrupt.
Written by Pat Davis:
Mr. Lloyd White, as we’ve often noticed over the years, you seem very confused, causing you to indulge in fallacy and error.
Example 1: you grudgingly mention Ms Uremovich efforts to alert the city to the “embezzlement and misuse of public funds,” but you don’t even have the decency to thank her and her benefactor for these sustained actions, noble and keenly alert efforts for which they were paid nothing by Beaumont itself. Their efforts were conducted despite the council prolongedly demeaning her, a vile “tradition” you seem intent of perpetuating.
Assistance in problem solving comes from many corners, and we view you as deficient in refusing to harness valid input from concerned citizens as natural components of any community’s governance team.
Example 2: You impugn Ms Uremovich offhand for not being a “professional auditor.” This is irrelevant. When it comes to basic audit line items, any citizen of average intelligence can detect malfeasance and lack of accountability.
Coupled with the fact that the California State Controller’s Office validated Ms Uremovich’s discoveries, one would think you would not stoop to disparaging her clear and accurate auditing capacities when the SCO’s audit found Beaumont’s municipal business being conducted in a reckless fashion that enabled the embezzlers to steal repeatedly.
—
Among the state controller’s findings cited by the Record Gazette 11/5/15:
The city failed to properly account for bond transactions including financing and utility authorities and a community facilities district that altogether issued $626 million in debt to Beaumont. The state controller’s team could not determine if the bond proceeds were used for their intended purposes.
Kapanicas and a former public works director, Deepak Moorjani, both principals of outside consultant firms that provided city staff, received fees from bond proceeds for their services. It was unclear if these services were separate from their responsibilities as city officials. The payments to their consulting firms created conflicts of interest.
—
Example 3: You personally claim to have acted on information and alarms sounded by Ms Uremovich, but that only you and later council colleagues fostered results with the authorities. But in your Op-Ed piece of today (1/4/18), in four instances you castigate Ms Uremovich for “fake news.”
But if Ms Uremovich is the source of such huge inaccuracies, why did you and the city council behave recklessly and utilize her alleged “fake news” as basis of the council’s requests for investigation to the County DA?
Please make up you mind!
Has Ms Uremovich been beneficial to Beaumont, or is she a fraud that past council persons ignored for years, allowing the embezzlers to gleefully bury their largess so well that even the Riverside DA office issued accusations of merely $42 million in theft rather than the $600 million in unaccountable funds that SCO officially claimed — findings with which the Beaumont council later officially concurred?
Refusal to listen and consider alarms today only generates delays that cost citizens more.
—
My concluding remarks:
Please give credit willingly where due, and continue to do so.
Even if you dislike bad news, don’t lie and claim it is fake news.
Please recognize that Ms Uremovich has been brilliantly spot on for much of this sordid tale of misuse of Beaumont’s bond funds. Her continued sounding of the alarm deserves more than your “fake news” slogan response, which essentially equates to name-calling.
I say these admonitions with emphasis because I have personally witnessed you being boorishly abusive towards Ms Uremovich many times. It seems personal with you.
In one instance, at an open city council meeting you were conspicuously overly harsh. In a news report later you were characterized as having “smacked (her) down.” https://patch.com/california/b…
Yours is not a respectful posture that my family and I would ask of Beaumont’s council members when dealing with varieties of citizen input.