Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Fppc Complaint By Local Realtor, Years Later?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 10:05 AM

..Business as usual??

 

Roger was warned of retaliation.   But his response is open, honest, and he stipulated.   

Who is real estate Complainant?  his connections, spurts in sales volumes B4 elections,  willingness to cast aspersion upon a novice politician -- years later -- because Roger challenged members with over 100 years in their chairs.   If complainant worked with Roger, why didn't he guide him instead of filing complaint later.   

Read Complaint and responses.  

Ask City for Roger's 2014 filings which the City maintained.  

This is a novice politician.  Didn't Complainant wait years before filing complaint when Roger was doing well, then won, with FPA south of 50 unbuilt?   

 

Why did FPPC impose a huge fine, uncharacteristic of such mistakes in timely filing by a novice fighting a huge, entrenched machine?

 

Roger stipulated -- indicates he has no intent to deceive.   Why punish him when four council candidates served over 100 years, so residents forgot what open elections look like?   What current state administration wishes to do to him could easily be done to any of us.

 

Hearing Thursday Feb. 16, 2017, 1:00 pm, 428 J St.,  FPPC has a hearing to consider imposing such an out-of-line fine.    

http://www.fppc.ca.g...017-agenda.html

Quote:

.Campaign Reporting

4. In the Matter of Roger Gaylord III and Roger Gaylord for Folsom City Council 2014; FPPC No. 15/097. Staff: Commission Counsel Michael W. Hamilton and Special Investigators Marshall Miller and George Aradi. Roger Gaylord was an unsuccessful candidate for the Folsom City Council in the November 4, 2014 General Election. Roger Gaylord for Folsom City Council 2014 was his candidate-controlled committee. The Committee and Gaylord failed to timely report activity on pre-election statements covering the period July 1 through October 18, 2014, and semiannual statements covering the period October 19, 2014 through June 30, 2015, in violation of Government Code Section 84211, subds. (a), (b), ©, (d), (f)(5), (j), and (k) (2 counts). The Committee and Gaylord failed to properly disclose sender identification on mass mailers, in violation of Government Code Section 84305, subd. (a) and Reg. 18435, subd. (d) (1 count). Additionally, the Committee and Gaylord made cash expenditures of $100 or more, totaling $2,249, in violation of Government Code Section 84300, subd. (b) (1 count). Total Proposed Penalty: $6,500. 

Gaylord III - Stip

 

 



#2 SCA

SCA

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 10:50 AM

The stipulation explains each infraction, the maximum penalties allowed, the reduced penalties being assessed in this case and the reasons for them.  

 

http://www.fppc.ca.g...tip and Exh.pdf

 

The FPPC doesn't let you off the hook because you're a "novice politician".  Last year a woman who ran a bare-bones campaign and upset an incumbent Assemblyman was fined $7,500 for multiple reporting violations including failing to deposit money into a campaign account after selling tamales as a fundraiser!



#3 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:10 PM

..Business as usual??

 

Roger was warned of retaliation.   But his response is open, honest, and he stipulated.   

Who is real estate Complainant?  his connections, spurts in sales volumes B4 elections,  willingness to cast aspersion upon a novice politician -- years later -- because Roger challenged members with over 100 years in their chairs.   If complainant worked with Roger, why didn't he guide him instead of filing complaint later.   

 

Read Complaint and responses.  

Ask City for Roger's 2014 filings which the City maintained.  

This is a novice politician.  Didn't Complainant wait years before filing complaint when Roger was doing well, then won, with FPA south of 50 unbuilt?   

 

 

Unless I read the complaint incorrectly, it looks like Roger admitted to the allegations and agreed to the settlement/fine. 

 

It does seem to be the act of a novice politician, rather than someone trying to get over on the system, but I understand why the laws are there. 

 

As for the guy who made the complaint, where do you get your data about spurts in sales? According to MLS records, he sold 21 homes over the past 3 years, only 4 in 2014.

 

Besides, are you suggesting that somehow Roger's political enemies directed people to use him to buy or sell homes?

 

It doesn't make sense.     


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#4 caligirlz

caligirlz

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 3,163 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 11 February 2017 - 05:37 PM

 

it looks like Roger admitted to the allegations and agreed to the settlement/fine. 

 

Yes he did, quite extensively on facebook.



#5 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:00 AM

FPPC had another Folsom fine on agenda.....   Where is the result for south-area Major Donors?

 

Folsom South Area Group, Major Donor Group   failed to report 2015 donation of $25,000

and 2nd donation of several thousand.

 

Proposed fine on Folsom S Major Donors was $667 for that $27,000+.

 

That's worth watching.     What's with FPPC?   PS, they prefer to punish "Stipulators" who admit error.

 

Additionally, only two small city novice candidates were found to be fined for same violation(s), and their fines were < half the Gaylord fine.   View for yourself:   

 

http://www.fppc.ca.g...on-reports.html

 


 



#6 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:11 AM

FPPC had another Folsom fine on agenda.....   Where is the result for south-area Major Donors?

 

Folsom South Area Group, Major Donor Group   failed to report 2015 donation of $25,000

and 2nd donation of several thousand.

 

Proposed fine on Folsom S Major Donors was $667 for that $27,000+.

 

That's worth watching.     What's with FPPC?   PS, they prefer to punish "Stipulators" who admit error.

 

Additionally, only two small city novice candidates were found to be fined for same violation(s), and their fines were < half the Gaylord fine.   View for yourself:   

 

http://www.fppc.ca.g...on-reports.html

 


 

 

Are you suggesting that the FPPC is doing something unethical and/or that they are being directed by someone in the city who has an axe to grind with Roger?


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#7 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:36 AM

I do and have done   research -- especially for federal entities.    Having had a judicial position on land use & law, I never insinuate or "suggest".    That is in the reader's mind.

 

Having a former-prosecutor as legal advisor, I know it is a crime to insinuate with respect to non-civil action(s).

 

Are you trying to taint that public information link or  Impute improper actions?

 

Suggest you research their Enforcement actions:   perhaps speak with Toren Lewis, FPPC Counsel, Enforcement Division.   He can tell you about their issuing a "legal document" (Complaint by FPPC itself),  which lacks names of  Folsom South Area Group, Major Donors.     Never before seen a charging document which has NO names of violators.

 

 

BTW, why don't you see if you can learn the name(s) of the FSAG Major Donors Group -  and their connection(s) to FPA development?    Are Major Donors part of the resurrection group for the SE Connector?    Who are these Major Donors, and why not name them, as novice council candidates have been named by FPPC a scant handful of times?     Isn't it important who accuses,  their motivation, their connections?    Sunshine!

 

 

.



#8 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:51 AM

I do and have done   research -- especially for federal entities.    Having had a judicial position on land use & law, I never insinuate or "suggest".    That is in the reader's mind.

 

Having a former-prosecutor as legal advisor, I know it is a crime to insinuate with respect to non-civil action(s).

 

Are you trying to taint that public information link or  Impute improper actions?

 

Suggest you research their Enforcement actions:   perhaps speak with Toren Lewis, FPPC Counsel, Enforcement Division.   He can tell you about their issuing a "legal document" (Complaint by FPPC itself),  which lacks names of  Folsom South Area Group, Major Donors.     Never before seen a charging document which has NO names of violators.

 

 

BTW, why don't you see if you can learn the name(s) of the FSAG Major Donors Group -  and their connection(s) to FPA development?    Are Major Donors part of the resurrection group for the SE Connector?    Who are these Major Donors, and why not name them, as novice council candidates have been named by FPPC a scant handful of times?     Isn't it important who accuses,  their motivation, their connections?    Sunshine!

 

 

.

 

I'm not trying to do anything but understand your point. 

 

You throw out confusing terms, acronyms, statements and questions. 

 

I just want to know, in simple concise english terms, what your point is. 


Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#9 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:03 PM

FPPC pursued a Folsom complaint against Roger, but FPPC's voluminous Enforcement history is mostly "letters" to offenders who don't stipulate.    Had Roger not stipulated, this would have been very different -- like the majority of the "closed" cases.

 

The real problem is the difference between the two "official complaints".

 

1.  Lengthy, lengthy stuff against Roger, citing hundreds of collective subsections of code which FPPC cannot enforce.     VERSUS.

 

2.  Short FPPC-generated complaint for 2015  (over $27,000)  against Folsom South Area Group Major Donors who are ANONYMOUS.    No citations, no names of violators, no mention of their role in Annexation Water MOU.

 

 

I wrote FPPC Counsel, Enforcement Div. seeking to know whom they complained against, the FSAG Major Donors.    This is important to our lives and legal protections.  

If FPPC is a sunshine group, why not name the 2015 major donor violators?    

 

Lots of people read this:    won't they all wish to know who Folsom South Area Group Major Donors  are?    This is the same group the city council gave (2008)    MOU regarding South Area Water ---   they were NOT named then either.   An MOU which enabled annexation despite thousands of objections -- and parties never are known.   What is with the selective secrecy?

 

 

.



#10 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:24 PM

Good to see you are still costing us more money Maestro.........!   Using all those crazy environmentalist, progressive, nonsense laws that no one can comply with......   No government, no city, no person.....  No way.........!   Can't be done.   And that is your plan.  Please go up to Oroville and sue them, I am sure you can find 100 EPA or whatever current environmental laws they are violating at this very moment.....!    Should keep you busy to your end of days.  Enjoy...!   Chris  


1A - 2A = -1A


#11 Agent_007

Agent_007

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:02 PM

Love the talk of water rights in flood season. Perfect!

 

Maestro, nothing personal, but your posts are incoherent.



#12 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 21 February 2017 - 07:56 PM

I have to agree, and I know I speak for almost everyone who reads her posts.

I have nothing against her, but she gets so far *into the weeds*, that hardly anyone here knows what the heck she's talking about.

Some people are good at communicating, and some aren't.



#13 BradenForFolsom

BradenForFolsom

    Newbie

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 10 March 2017 - 02:49 PM

I am happy to have a fresh face on the council.......Roger should have to play by the rules just like anyone else....... it is very silly to me though that we have all these campaign rules........but then there is "independent expenditures" PACS/ developers should not decide elections....... failure to put money into account before a  fundraiser......ok that's fine.......rules are good...... how about no independent expenditures.....that would be a great rule






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users