Law Firm Commits Fraud in Attempt to Conceal Beaumont’s Forged Financial Statements
On January 25, 2016 Beaumont Council Meeting Special Session City Attorney John Pinkney and Attorney Charles Gallinger, both from the Law Firm of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy Pinkney, committed Fraud in an attempt to cover up the City of Beaumont’s forged Financial Statements.
Since Fiscal Year 2012 the City of Beaumont has fraudulently claimed that the City loaned the Beaumont Redevelopment Agency (RDA) $21.5 Million. The City never had money to loan to the RDA. The $21.5 Million is a plugged number and nothing more.
On January 25, 2016 Acting City Attorney John Pinkney announced that his Law Firm has determined that $19.8 Million of the forged number was legitimate and was appealing to the Department of Finance.
There’s documentation to backup a forged number? That’s a little hard to believe, so a Public Records Request was submitted to produce the Records Pinkney and Galliger stated were proof of the City’s Loans to the RDA. The Records Request also included direction from Council for the Law Firm of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy Pinkney to defraud the Public and to attempt to defraud the California State Department of Finance.
It’s been 60 days since the original record request, but the City can not produce the documents they assured the Council and Citizens were already prepared.
It’s hard to produce documents that don’t exist.
Below is a Transcript and a copy of the Original Records Request:
Beaumont City Council Special Meeting Transcript January 25, 2016
Resolution to Amend Master Loan Agreement ($20 Million Plugged Number)
81:00 PInkney: This is about Redevelopment and I”m going to introduce you to Charles Galliger from my Law Firm who’s been working with City staff on that dissolution process. There’s a requirement that the Master Loan Agreement be amended/changed and there’s some other items on the Agenda that Mr. Galliger is going to be addressing.
82:00 Galliger: The City agreed to loan funds to the RDA for master projects. City Staff has determined that approximately $19.8 Million remains outstanding and unpaid under the City Master Loan Agreement.
87:00 Galliger: We know there might be some potential problems with the Repayment; getting the Loan reinstated by the Oversight Board. But City Staff has done some exceptional work in filling some of the gaps that were sighted by the Oversight Board. Specifically in locating the additional backup and reconstructing the history of the Loan. I think they’ve done an exceptional job. I think we have a much better presentation for the Oversight Board. Ultimately it’s possible that [the State Department of Finance would still reject this, but that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the process.
88:00 Galliger: If the City wants any chance of repayment of the Master Loan at this time we strongly recommend that the Loan be Amended on the terms recommended and that it be included in the upcoming ROPS.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST DATED JANUARY 28, 2016:
Council Minutes stating that Council gave direction to Pinkney to continue the attempt to defraud the State and Citizens of Beaumont with the $20 Million that Aylward plugged into the Financial Statements in 2012.
The State Document listing the ‘requirement’ that the Master Loan Agreement is amended/changed.
Listing of all RDA Projects constructed with $21.5 Million including list expenditures on each individual Project.
Money Trail including but not limited to the Financial Statements showing the City’s acquisition of the following Funds, the Financial Statements showing the City’s release of the Funds to the Redevelopment Agency, the Financial Statements showing the Redevelopment Agency’s acquisition of the Funds, and the Financial Statements showing the Redevelopment Agency’s distribution of the Funds:
06/30/2003: $ 700,000
06/30/2004: $1,100,000
06/30/2005: $1,400,000
06/30/2006: $1,200,000
06/30/2007: $1,100,000
06/30/2008: $7,000,000
06/30/2009: $2,600,000
06/30/2010: $6,400,000
All ‘additional backup’ located in ‘filling the gaps’ including name of person that located the documents, where the documents were located, the date the documents were located, and the reason why the documents were not ‘located’ in the past.