Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the tag “politics”

17 Feb 2012

Who Should Testify About Birth Control? Apparently Not Women!

By EOM Staff

Funny how birth control has become such a hot political issue lately.  We’ve had the pill for almost 60 years now.  Abortions have always existed, legal or not.  I just can’t help but think that if birth control were the responsibility of men we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Now there is a five-member panel to hear testimony about birth control.  The five members are all male.  Not one woman to hear testimony about the need for birth control!  On top of that, these five men are deciding who is an “appropriate witness to give testimony” to them.  They are excluding women from telling their personal stories about the need for birth control.  On The Ed Show last night, there was a young college student who had been scheduled to give testimony to the contraception panel.  At the last minute, these men decided she was not an appropriate witness to give testimony.  So she went on the Ed Show and told the story of her friend, also a college student, who took birth control pills to prevent cysts from growing on her ovaries.  The pills cost her $100 a month.  Month after month after month.  The expense finally became too great to bear, as she was working her way through college and had tuition, room and board and books to pay for.  She stopped getting her pills.  A cyst grew in her ovary, ruptured and landed her in the hospital.  Now the ovary has been removed, but her medical condition has caused her to go into early menopause.  For some unfathomable reason, the male panel did not feel this was appropriate testimony!

Additionally, there is now one more reason to call Mitt Romney “Flipper”.  Prior to becoming governor of Massachusetts, his predecessor signed into law a mandate that insurance companies in Massachusetts provide birth control coverage.  Once Mr. Romney took office, he never attempted to repeal this law.  His only clash with lawmakers in Massachusetts was whether Catholic hospitals should be required to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.

Now that he is running for President, he would actually like to ban hormonal birth control methods.  That would include IUDs and birth control pills.  He is up in arms over President Obama’s proposal that insurances companies provide birth control coverage, even though Obama’s proposal exempts churches.

Yes, many of the GOP contenders state that women can get their birth control from clinics instead of through their insurance.  But these same men would like to eliminate funding for places such as Planned Parenthood.  If that happens, where would women get their birth control?  The pill runs between $60 – $100 a month, IUD’s cost about $1800.  How could college students or low income women afford this?

The most appalling thing of all was the interview given by one of Rick Santorum’s biggest financial contributors last night.  He said, and I quote, “back in my day birth control was inexpensive and easy to use – the gals just held an aspirin between their knees!”  Obviously this man has no consideration for the plight of women of child-bearing age, gives no consideration to the pressure men put on women to have sex, and sees contraception as just a woman’s issue (the gals), even though we are about to lose the right to said contraception!  This man belongs back in the 1800s, not in 2012!

If women don’t get out in force in November, we will lose the right to birth control and the right to safe and legal abortions.  What will be next?  The right to own property, vote, hold down a job, have credit in our own name, serve on a jury, run for public office?  These are rights that women have won over the last 150 years.  All of these things were once illegal for women.  We can’t let that happen again.

Come on women – register to vote and get out in November!  Don’t let men control our lives once again!

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , | Leave a comment
12 Dec 2011
5 Comments

Kari Abbey prelim Exam – Day Four

By Emerson Drake

To open the day, the defense presents Sally Ann Pantoja.  She lived at 2012 Donald back in September of 2010. 

Defense attorney Rains first has her explain how she rents from Kari Abbey, as does her best friend Julie Perez who was renting from Ms. Abbey at the time. She explains another of her friends was looking for a place and that she’s talked with Abbey about this friend renting a house from her and had left her number with Abbey.  Responding to questions she states, she didn’t really know Rita Elias but had been introduced to her by her friend Julie.  She said Rita comes and goes from the 1780A address frequently.  Also that she knows the two men living there better than she knew Rita. 

The night of the shooting she said she heard shouting outside and went into her front yard and saw Rita Elias (the Mexican woman is how Pantoja describes Rita) picking up her personal belongings out of the street and placing them in her backpack.

A tall, older white male was engaged in an argument with Rita.  Julie told Sally that the male was Mr. Abbey.  He was yelling at Rita “If you don’t get off of my property I’ll let her get you.”  Rita responds that she doesn’t have to leave. Then James Abbey yells at her again to get off of his property.  Pantoja says Rita was cursing at James.

Ms. Pantojo states during this time she didn’t hear Kari saying anything. That just the man and Rita were arguing.

Just as she believes Rita, having gathered all of her belongings in the backpack, is going to leave, she says Rita then said. “Fuck this, I’m going to get my gun.”  Rita sets the backpack down by Pantoja’s fence and then walks quickly across the street, past the cars, into the apartment and comes back out with a stick/branch in her left hand and what we now know as a bb gun in her right.

At this point Sally Pantoja runs up to her own porch and when she reaches it she hears what she describes as five gunshots.  Sally says she didn’t see any of the shooting. When asked who was there, at the beginning she said only she and Ester Elipo, the occupant of 1708B.  Only after being prompted by Rains did she mention Jose Flores for the first time. She now mentions she watched Jose Flores get in his truck and drive off.  She then hears Kari say someone call 911.  Sally explains this was the first thing she heard Kari say.

On cross examination by D.A. Harris, her story changes slightly and she gets mixed up repeatedly.   

Sally tells the court she didn’t know who Kari Abbeys manager Jose Flores was, and that she had never seen him around before.  She also says James Abbey, in response to Rita’s cursing and saying she wouldn’t leave, said “Rita, get off my property or I’ll let Kari loose on you.”   Responding to further questioning by D.A. Harris, Sally explains that the reason the Sheriff’s Deputies hadn’t talked with her before is that when they knocked on her door that night she hid and wouldn’t answer, When Sally was asked why she explained she was on parole and she didn’t want them to take her to jail.

The deputies went around a second time attempting to find witnesses and knocked on her door but she still refused to answer.  Sally admitted her front door had been open during the first attempt to contact her but she still didn’t answer.  Sally also said the only two vehicles she saw that night were the pick-up and the jeep.  She didn’t see Kari Abbey’s sheriff’s car with the children in it.  But she claims to have seen the children afterward.

LeAnn Rae Wesner-Donaldson took the stand.  She’s been with Children and Family Services for nine and a half years.  She was called to the home by George Papadopoulos.  When she arrived the children had already been taken to the other grandparents home onMuncy Drive.   

She testified she had been shown the three weapons found in the home.  She said Papadopoulos told her the weapons all needed racked (a cartridge inserted) but that their magazines were loaded but had been separated by the time she arrived.

Later she interviewed the children, ages one and six.

Robert McFarlane, a private investigator for the defense attorneys firm then took the stand. He introduced and walked us through portions of a DVD taken at the home of James and Denise Abbey.  Included were scenes from the living room, a second bedroom used by a child, the second bathroom, and Kari Abbey and Bennie Taylor’s walk in bedroom closet.

He also discusses the samurai swords on the wall and the one on a lower shelf in the Abbey/Taylor side of the house.  He made a point the lower sword on the stand within reach of the children was “duller than a butter knife.”

He is asked about the diagram of the apartments at 1708 Donald.  He points out in pictures taken at the scene the window appears to be in a different location than in the diagram.  But under questioning he acknowledges that after the shooting a deputy had used a laser range finder to measure the distances from a variety of set points on the apartment to set points on the vehicles in the driveway.

Mr. McFarlane created a diagram of the houses (three) located at 712S. Santa Cruz.  These are rentals owned by the Abbeys.  His representation of the area is supposed to create some doubt as to the story about Kari Abbey throwing tenant Victor Quintana’s stored items in the side yard.  But D.A. Harris shows McFarlane a google overhead photo that proximately displays the shortcomings of the diagram and its lack of scale accuracy and suggests the original story regarding the belongings could have been accurate.

D.A. Harris took pains to get introduced to the record that having a small amount of meth might not mean one is under the influence of the drug.  And that one of the ways used to measure if someone has ingested the drug is to measure the residue of the kidney’s cleaning the system.

The next hearing for Kari Abbey will be next Monday where the attorneys for both sides will present final arguments.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
11 Nov 2011

On-Going Scandal in Modesto

By Emerson Drake

City Manager Gregg Nyhoff perpetuated the myth of “everything is fine” down at city hall at Wednesday night’s city council meeting.  The bobble heads were nodding in agreement that city workers overseeing the NSP2 funds are stretched too thin, rather than acknowledging pressure from local power brokers was responsible.  When you listen to members of the Commonwealth Group explain it away, it almost sounds plausible until you consider the web of intrigue that surrounds the scandal.

From city councilmen and their business partners scheming their way through the NSP2 maze of paperwork and guidelines, to newspaper publishers relatives being waist deep in the mire.

While the SCAP controversy abused everyone’s sense of reason, the NSP2 controversy exposed the raw naked greed of a city councilman who can’t use city attorney Susan Alcala Wood as a shield this time.

The premise that a city official can’t profit from NSP2 funds or HUD money isn’t obscure, not in the least.  It’s one of the first things you learn.

But when the money Ryan Swehla and Scott Monday funneled to Benchmark Realty (a company Swehla owns with Joe Muratore) first came to light, it was eclipsed by the SCAP scandal.

Needless to say, despite Mark Vasche’s claim of distancing himself from the reporting on this, it can’t be easy to be a reporter writing about Vasche’s son-in-law (Scott Monday).

Commonwealth members continue to support Councilman Muratore despite his being caught with his fingers in the till.  After all, his being on the council, adds unspoken pressure on city employees (unspoken by Muratore), while his partner doesn’t hesitate to play the “do you know who my partner is” card to anyone unaware of the affiliation.

Even most of the city council has remained silent on whether or not Muratore should resign his seat.

You can’t expect any pressure from his council district, considering that Mike Moradian has been inspecting all of the homes being “processed” by the conjoined triumvirate.

How can citizens ofModestoexpect to be treated with respect and honesty while the Bee management is shielding Muratore and his cohorts.

To be bluntly spoken, we can’t.  People need to express their dissatisfaction and outrage to the City Council and everyone they meet. 

We need to say the iconoclast, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” 
― Margaret Mead

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
26 Oct 2011
2 Comments

Attention Joe Muratore, No Conflict of Interest? That’s NOT Entirely True Is It

We understand how Bee reporter Ken Carlson has a difficult job getting reality past his editors and we truly sympathize. So we contacted the City Attorney Susan Acala Wood through City Clerk Stephanie Lopez to find out what really took place.

Here is the Ms. Wood’s response:

Dear Mr. Drake:
The City Clerk’s Office forwarded your request to me for response.
It’s unfortunate that the newspaper mis-reported the facts, because their botched article has obviously caused your concern.
The actual facts are that once the OIG auditors flagged the Tully Road transaction to City staff, a number of steps which included analyzing the transaction under three separate and applicable conflict of interest statutes: 1) HUD and NSP regulations; 2) The Political Reform Act; and 3) Government Code Section 1090.
In the first one, the City of Modesto found that Councilmember Muratore violated conflict of interest laws under the NSP program and HUD regulations when, as a principal of Benchmark, he participated in the sale and acquisition of the Tully Road property which was purchased by Trinity Ventures through the NSP program. Enforcement action was taken, which included the issuance of a violation notice and a demand for a return of the $62,000.00 commission that Benchmark received. As a result, Councilmember Muratore and Benchmark forfeited the commission (A number of enforcement actions were also taken against Trinity Ventures however Councilmember Muratore is not a principal of Trinity). This enforcement action was pursued in consultation with HUD officials in the regional office in San Francisco. Both HUD and the City await the final audit from OIG to determine if they will require us to take additional action.
In the second one, the FPPC found that Councilmember Muratore violated conflict of interest laws under the California Political Reform Act regarding his vote on two NSP related action items. They issued him a written warning, and set forth reasons why they were declining to assess a fine or penalty against him and considered their enforcement action closed.
Regarding the third, out of an abundance of caution, the Council asked my office to review the Tully Road transaction and determine whether the Councilmember’s involvement implicated Government Code Section 1090. We engaged the law firm of Meyers Nave, and Mr. Richard Rudnansky to assist in this analysis and review. The City paid approximately $2200.00 for this work. The analysis concluded there was no 1090 violation because the transaction was not one that was presented to the Council for action, nor did it require ratification by the Council, and also because the delegation to the CH&CDC, which was the body authorized to give final approve to the loans, occurred prior to Councilmember Muratore being elected to office (so he was not in a position to influence the delegation to the CH&CDC). Accordingly, no additional enforcement action was required under this statute.
That is the statement that the Mayor provided yesterday. If you would like a copy of the statement that was given, just let me or Ms. Lopez know.
I know this is more information than you actually requested. But since you always take care to research into the actual facts, I thought you might appreciate the information.
If I can answer additional questions, please feel free to contact me.
Susana Wood
City Attorney
Here is the official city news release:

Mayor Provides Update Regarding Councilmember Conflict of Interest Issue

Below is the formal statement from Modesto Mayor Jim Ridenour regarding the Councilmember Conflict of Interest issue related to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP):
I want to take this opportunity to provide an update to the public about the conclusion of the City’s review of the receipt of a real estate sales commission earned by Benchmark Realty, the company co-owned by Councilmember Muratore for the sale of a property that was purchased using NSP funds.
As soon as the City became aware of the Councilmember’s involvement, a number of actions were simultaneously initiated to address the matter:
• To begin with, staff conducted an immediate investigation to verify the facts and to determine the appropriate manner in which to proceed under NSP regulations. This included coordinating with HUD staff. As a result, the City took immediate corrective action to recover the commission
• I requested that the OIG conduct a full audit of the City’s NSP program. The OIG also determined that the involvement by the Councilmember would trigger a more comprehensive audit of the City’s NSP transactions. That review has been ongoing and is expected to conclude in the next 6-7 weeks.
• Benchmark principals were notified of the violation of NSP regulations and were ordered to return the commission to the city. Benchmark immediately responded and returned the funds.
• Councilmember Muratore self-initiated a report to FPPC for determination of whether he had violated conflict of interest laws under the California Political Reform Act. The FPPC responded that he had violated the Political Reform Act and he was given a written warning. They also determined that because Mr. Muratore promptly brought the matter to their attention they would close the case without fine or penalty.
• Finally, the City Council requested from its attorneys a formal review, analysis and opinion as to whether the transaction constituted an impermissible Conflict of interest violation under California Government Code section 1090. The analysis concluded there was no 1090 violation because the transaction was not one that was presented to the Council for action, and the delegation to the CH&CDC, which was the body delegated to approve the loans, occurred prior to Councilmember Muratore being elected to office.
I have personally overseen this process on behalf of the Council, and feel that the City has been diligent in its response to this incident. The City Manager has kept the OIG auditors fully informed of all responses to this matter, and has continued to request HUD’s assistance and review of every step of the enforcement action taken.
We will also continue to wait for the results of the OIG audit and respond to any additional actions they may require of the City.

We want to thank Ms. Woods and Ms. Lopez for their timely response to our queries.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , ,

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →