.

1/17/20 – When councilman Don Peterson submitted his resignation on January 2nd, he went out with a bang. Peterson’s resignation letter (view here) made numerous stunning claims, many Banning residents may have never heard of.

Some people ask : are Peterson’s stunning claims actually true? In order to answer this question, this article will fact check each one of the former council member’s claims.

.

.

PETERSON’S CLAIM #1 :

MAYOR DANIELA ANDRADE RECENTLY FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITH OVER $200,000.00 IN DEBT

According to the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District Of California, Case 6:18-bk-14155-MH, Daniela Andrade and her husband Alfredo, himself previously a Trustee on the Banning School Board, jointly filed for bankruptcy on 5/17/18. Their entire filing can be found by clicking here.

On page 9 of the filing, Andrade lists her total liabilities at $218,711.40

Page 22 of the filing shows that Andrade and her hubby racked up their American Express Card to the tune of  $29,413, owes Discover Card $17,907, Capital One Card $ 1,426 and Macy’s $7,205 , for a grand total of $ 55,951 in credit card debt alone.

With this said, Andrade’s bankruptcy filing documents show that Don Peterson’s claim #1 is 100% true. Andrade is a total deadbeat.

.

.

PETERSON’S CLAIM #2 :

MAYOR PRO TEM COLLEEN WALLACE IS A CONVICTED CRIMINAL, PROBATION VIOLATOR AND WAS EVEN CHARGED WITH FELONY CHECK FORGERY

As we had reported in the past, Mayor Pro Tem Colleen Wallace was convicted of lying to a Police Officer and driving on a suspended license in San Bernardino Superior Court , case # 604773CW (view here). Wallace was given probation for these offenses. Wallace violated her probation which resulted in the Court issuing a warrant for her arrest on 7/28/2008 ( see docket entry here).

.

.

In 2004 the Riverside District Attorney’s Office filed felony charges against Colleen Wallace for passing a counterfeit traveller check at the Cabazon Outlet Mall (Riverside Superior Court case # BAF003252) .

 

The Cabazon merchant had not only positively identified Wallace as the one passing the fake check, but the signature on the check also matched that of Wallace on her driver’s license, according to an affidavit by the Riverside Sheriffs Department. The case was ultimately dismissed due to failure by the District Attorney to timely prosecute the matter.

 

For details including a police affidavit alleging Colleen Wallace’ criminal activity, please see this article. Public record supports the notion that Wallace is nothing more than a common Banning thug.

.

Peterson’s claim #2 about Colleen Wallace is therefore 100% correct.

.

.

.

PETERSON’S CLAIM # 3:

CITY MANAGER DOUG SCHULZE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY TWICE AND HAD THREE OF HIS HOMES FORECLOSED ON

As we had previously reported, Court records indeed show two bankruptcy filings for Doug Schulze : his first bankruptcy filing was in June of 1999,(case # 9907762 – Western Seattle Federal Court). The second bankruptcy filing was in October of 2002, with the bankruptcy being discharged in June of 2004 (case # 0222952 – Western Seattle Federal Court).

A total of three foreclosure proceedings were initiated against Doug Schulze and his wife Lisa. All three filings were made by different lenders.

Foreclosures were filed against Doug Schulze on the following dates:

• January 8, 1998 – creditor: Susan J. Robinson / GE Capital Mortgage (view filing)
• April 7, 1999 – creditor: North Pacific Trustee / First Mortgage Corp. (view filing)
• July, 3, 2002 – creditor : First Mortgage Corp. (view filing)

.

Schulze has shown a pattern of allowing his homes to go into foreclosure, while being gainfully employed. This is likely the reason why he no longer owns a home and currently rents in Sun Lakes.

Overall, no city manager in Banning’s history ever had such an abysmal personal financial history. How can Banning improve with a city manager who conducts himself as such a loser when it comes to his personal finances?

Don Peterson’s claim # 3, essentially identifying City Manager Doug Schulze as a notorious serial deadbeat, once again is 100% correct.

.

.

PETERSON’S CLAIM # 4 :

BANNING ELECTRIC UTILITY IS GOUGING ITS CUSTOMERS, SITS ON ABOUT $30M IN CASH STOLEN FROM THE RATEPAYERS IN VIOLATION OF PROP 26

Here Peterson makes an interesting point that needs to be expanded upon. To understand this issue, we first need to understand California Proposition 26, which became part of California’s constitution back in 2010.

In essence, Prop 26 forbids a public utility to charge a hidden tax by declaring it to be a “fee” for its services. In the case of Banning Electric, this means that the utility can only charge for the actual cost of its services, but cannot impose charges that are to be used for general city operations, i.e. for the general fund.

However, this is exactly what Banning did for almost 9 years, after Prop 26 became law – and herein lies the problem. Other cities, for example the City of Riverside, have already been sued for this unlawful practice.

.

But instead of abandoning this unlawful gouging, Banning’s predominant swamp creatures , aka George Moyer, Debbie Franklin and Art Welch, tried to scam their way out of the problem : during the 2018 election they introduced “Measure P” (view), which was proposing to legalize the now illegal gouging practice of charging excessive funds to electric customers, and then transferring them from the utility to the city’s general fund, in the same way it had been done for decades.

Since said three corrupt leaders couldn’t tell the truth if their life depended on it, they avoided calling the proposed measure a “tax”. Instead, they tried to trick voters by promising them a three year “rate freeze”, if they approved to indefinitely continue the long standing, previously 100% illegal, practice of using utility money for the city’s operation.

Fortunately, the deceptive Moyer/Franklin/Welch scam was ultimately defeated, yet only narrowly. The defeat must largely be attributed to Don Peterson, who authored the official “Argument Against Measure “P” (view), which was circulated via voter pamphlet among all voters. Peterson used this argument to expose the fraud leading up to the measure.

.

The defeat of Measure “P” goes to show that scam artists like George Moyer, Debbie Franklin and Art Welch may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but even they can’t fool all the people all the time.

.

But even the defeat of Measure P still does not change the fact that, for almost 10 years, ratepayers were gouged for unbelievable amounts of money: we are talking about an amount of roughly $2.5M per year since 2010, which amounts to about $22.5M to date – money that was stolen from the ratepayers and never returned.

A recent email from the Electric Utility Director Tom Miller shows that the City  currently has amassed almost $ 27M in cash (view email) . At least $22.5M of this amount was illegally obtained from the ratepayers after Prop 26 had passed in 2010. Hence, this money was stolen.

This theft amounts to somewhere near $2,000 for each and every Electric utility customer account in Banning. Money that never belonged to the utility and should have been refunded.

But instead of ordering the utility to issue a refund, a complicit Banning city council continues to sweep the issue under the rug, and is already plotting to implement yet another rate hike.

As we have shown above, the record fully supports Don Peterson’s claim of price gouging and utility theft by the Banning Electric Utility. It is 100% true.

.

.

PETERSON’S CLAIM # 5:

“THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IS CONTEMPLATING FILING CHARGES AGAINST A BANNING POLICE OFFICER FOR AN ON-DUTY MURDER, CHIEF HAMNER HAS REFUSED TO PLACE THE OFFICER ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE OR INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE RESULTS OF / OR IF A SHOOTING REVIEW BOARD HAS EVEN OCCURRED”

If correct, this claim by Don Peterson should make every resident of Banning extremely worried. Is there indeed a cop suspected of murder patrolling the streets of Banning?

For several months now, the Banning Informer has attempted to get to the bottom of this officer involved shooting, which incidentally was never reported by the Record Gazette (like so many other things that have the ability to make Banning look awful).

.

.
DEADLY OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING CONFIRMED

The Desert Sun reported that on February 7, 2019 an officer involved shooting occurred, which caused the death of a Banning resident. The name of the officer who fired the deadly shots was not released .

From what we understand, several officers had responded that night to a disturbance call on Blanchard Street. Eventually one officer drew his weapon, fired a single shot and killed the resident, who is said to have been unarmed.

.

.
ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Several months ago, the Banning Informer had requested all records related to this shooting from the Banning Police Department. We also requested that the officer’s name be released.

On December 17, 2019, the City Clerk informed us that the officer involved was now under criminal investigation :

“The incident is still the subject of an active criminal investigation that is being conducted at the direction of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, and the District Attorney’s Office has not yet determined whether to file criminal charges.” (Subsequently, further clarification was given by the city, indicating that it was the Riverside County District Attorney who is conducting the criminal investigation, not the LA County DA.)

Much to our consternation, the same email also indicated that the officer  suspected of criminal activity ( murder?) is still on the lose patrolling the streets of Banning :

“the City is withholding the name of the officer involved in the shooting because it believes, based on the officer’s current work assignment, that releasing the officer’s name at this time would present a particularized safety threat to the officer.”

This statement confirms that, despite being a suspect in a criminal investigation, the officer is not on administrative leave and still has a “work assignment”. And to release his name would be a “threat to the officer”. But what about the officer being a threat to the public, in case this officer is found guilty of murder?

.

.

CHIEF HAMNER THROWS CAUTION TO THE WIND

The foregoing shows that Chief Hamner, who was hyped up by city manager Doug Schulze to be the cat’s meow of law enforcement, is throwing caution to the wind. This may be because Hamner actually lacked the POST certification required to be a cop in California at the time of his hiring.

Hamner’s unprofessional handling of a potentially criminal officer involved shooting suggests that he is running the Banning Police Department in a rather reckless, irresponsible manner, without common sense and with little to no regard for the safety of the public. Also, by allowing a potential murderer to patrol our streets, Hamner is potentially exposing the City of Banning to enormous liability.

We don’t know of a single case in California where an officer who was suspected of the criminal on-duty killing of a citizen was left on duty during the criminal investigation.

.

.

WHICH OFFICER WAS INVOLVED?

When asked who he believed the officer involved to be, Don Peterson responded that he believed the killer to be Sergeant Michael Bennett.

Does Peterson’s assumption seem plausible? Peterson’s belief is affirmed by allegations made in a recent lawsuit against the City of Banning, filed by former Banning Interim Police Chief Robert Fisher. In his suit Fisher identifies Sgt. Bennett as the shooter (Riverside Superior Court case# RIC1905878).

Fisher says that Bennett was fired from Riverside County Sheriff for lying to another officer about his identity, and therefore must be considered a “Brady Cop”.

Fisher further alleges that Bennett lied to City manager Doug Schulze in the line of duty, but that Schulze has shielded Bennett from any investigation, and instead has targeted Fisher for being a whistleblower.

.

.

DOCUMENTED FACTS

With this said, we are sharing the following, thoroughly documented facts about officer Bennett:

The latest incident would not have been the first time that officer Bennett was involved in the killing of a citizen while on duty. Prior to the officer involved shooting on February 7th, 2019, Bennett was involved in shooting a citizen in the line of duty in 2006.

,

The suspect was Jesse Jones, a 26-year old African American man. Jones was pursued solely because he was suspected of painting graffiti in Banning, and was fleeing from Bennett.

.

During a foot pursuit, Bennett discharged his weapon twice. Jones died that night at the hospital.

.

The autopsy report (view here) showed that Jones was shot in the back – twice, with the bullets exiting his torso on the upper chest and lower abdomen.

Despite this very disturbing finding, the shooting was ruled to be in compliance with Banning’s shooting policy.

.

.

.

MEMBER OF “SHOOTING REVIEW BOARD”: LYING “BRADY COP” LT. PHIL HOLDER

For those who know how Banning operates, the 2006 ruling by the Banning “Shooting Review Board” will be anything but surprising: documents show that the Board at the time consisted of at least one dirty, lying Banning cop: Lieutenant Phil Holder (since then promoted to Captain).

.

For starters, Holder is the son of convicted serial bank robber Frank D. Holder (a.k.a the “Grandpa Bandit” – see L.A. Times story here and our previous story here).

Phil Holder himself had a history of betraying the public’s trust: he was caught lying on duty while working at Pomona PD, which made him a “Brady Cop”.

.

A “Brady Cop” is a law enforcement officer who has verifiably lied in the line of duty, in most cases under oath. This circumstance must be disclosed to the defense in any subsequent criminal case where the officer is a witness, which makes any Brady Cop a useless, impeachable witness in any court proceeding. In other words, Brady Cops ought to be considered the lowest form of life in law enforcement.

Notwithstanding that he was a confirmed liar, Brady Cop Phil Holder was promoted to Captain about 3 years ago. The promotion is said to have occurred at the behest of corrupt former Mayor George Moyer, during a time when councilman Peterson was on vacation.

The promotion was Moyer’s way to ensure that he always had a compromised insider at the Banning Police Department, who would forever be indebted to him. After all, Moyer had reason to be concerned: only a year earlier Moyer had been investigated for threatening to shoot and kill his Sun Lakes neighbor in a dispute over a barking dog (click here to view Police report on this incident).

.

When Hamner took over as Chief in 2019, none other than Phil Holder became his right hand man.

In retrospect, the participation of a Brady Cop, i.e. a professional liar, on Sgt. Bennett’s 2006 “Shooting Review Board” severely taints the credibility of the Board’s findings. If a cop lacks credibility when testifying in court because he is a confirmed liar, then how can he have credibility ruling on an officer involved shooting? Brady Cops should never rule on officer involved shootings. NEVER. But in Banning they do.

We also see that Deputy Chief Leonard Purvis was a member of the “Shooting Review Board”. Purvis, who later became Banning Police Chief, had a conflict of interest reviewing Michael Bennett’s shooting : Purvis was good friends with Bennett’s brother, Riverside Sheriff Lieutenant Paul Bennett, who he had worked with at RSO. Due to his close ties to a member of Bennett’s family, Purvis should have recused himself from the investigation – but didn’t.

 

Purvis’ and Holder’s involvement in this matter severely calls into question the integrity of the entire Banning Police Department. Time will tell how the criminal investigation of last year’s officer involved shooting will play out.

.

They say that “a fish rots from the head down”. History shows us that this has long been the case with the City of Banning and its Police Department. Why haven’t we heard anything from the Department? What does it say about Chief Hamner, when he allows an officer who is suspected of a capital crime to patrol Banning’s streets?

In closing, what we know from public documents is that Don Peterson was correct with claim # 5. We see it as 100% true.

.

.

CONCLUSION

As demonstrated above, all of Don Peterson’s claims about the City of Banning check out.

Peterson resigned because he saw no hope for this corrupt city. Do you?

.

If you would like to comment or discuss this – or any other – article,  please visit us on FACEBOOK