Oct 092020

We know and can prove that Scott Alvord filed 4 Campaign finance reports late. If that was the only issue, it is not a huge deal $10-$20 a day in fines is typical. In Scott’s Case, this could be over $7500 because the 2017 Report was 730 days late at least.

The potential criminal issue is the backdated signatures on the reports.

So, let’s walk through this so you can understand the significance and focus on this.

When I checked the City of Roseville’s Website, I noticed that they used the date 1-31-2020 for all of Scott Alvord’s Campaign filings from the middle of 2017 to present. I followed up to ask for records from the City. The City confirmed in writing that they received the four reports on 1-31-2020 – confirming that they were all late. This is a clear violation of City Ordinances and State Campaign Finance Law. Click here to see the written response from the City of Roseville confirming the reports were filed on 1-31-2020 as in late. (please note that the screenshot referenced by the City of Roseville Staff did not translate when I converted the email in to a PDF, I can provide a snip of it upon request)

Now – at the time I made the records request, the City’s Website still had the reports with no date stamp on them posted. AS of 10-4-2020, I checked and the non-stamped reports were still there, in fact, I downloaded them on 10-2-2020 for this post. UPDATE: As of 11:20AM 10-9-2020, the unstamped reports are STILL on the City Website.

Click here to see 7-12 2017, 1-6 2018, 7-12 2018, and 1-6 2019 reports with no date stamp. 1-6 = Jan-Jun  and 7-12 = Jul – Dec. As you view these, I encourage you to look at the date they were signed as stipulated on the reports.

The significance of the unstamped reports being on the City’s Website is that it calls in to question if the City did it on accident or on purpose. Your intrepid blogger was sent an email redacted from another source that was chasing the information. You can see that email here. In the email you will see that the city indicated that the date/time stamps were too faint to show up in the scans.

The next problem is when I received the Stamped Reports I requested – the date stamps are quite clear. You can see them here yourself: 7-12 2017, 1-6 2018, 7-12 2018, 1-6 2019 – all have very easy to read stamps, all prove that Scott Alvord filed those four of these reports late. (up to 2 years late) The significance is the date stamps prove it beyond a doubt.

So why are the stamped reports so easy to read and why were the reports on the City Website so clearly absent a stamp? Did the City scan them in before stamping them and post them? Why aren’t the stamped reports on the website?

I have to wonder if Scott asked the City of Roseville for a favor. Did Scott ask them to help obscure the fact he filed 4 reports late? Did Scott take advantage of an Inexperienced City Staffer?

Since I have filed a complaint with the City Attorney, I have been notified that the City Staff are taking the complaint quite seriously. This suggests that it may well have been Alvord manipulating a City Staffer and/or a City Staffer inexperienced and unaware of campaign law. This is a huge problem in City Council Elections – most small Cities are simply not equipped to handle this stuff.

Worse, the people tasked with investigating Scott Alvord’s Complaint could in theory be fired by him as a councilmember.

Scott’s Late reports once public, showed that he committed several violations of campaign finance law:

Twice paying entities controlled by himself out of his campaign funds.
Twice paying a non-profit corporation controlled by his wife out of campaign funds.
Twice receiving over-the-limit contributions
7 Times donating to other candidates (legal FPPC wise, but a violation of city ordinance)
Once having a large decrease in cash balance that is unexplained nor accounted for
Once having a small increase in cash balance that is unexplained nor accounted for

Then there is either maintaining a campaign fundraising committee outside of designated campaign periods, or failing to convert a candidate committee to an officeholder committee – both improper and clear FPPC violations. (the State regulatory agency)

For those of you scoring at home, we have 19 violations of campaign finance law that we filed a complaint regarding. Does Scott Alvord not know the ordinances in the City he represents on the Council? Or, Worse do the rules not apply to him? AND – did he file the reports late to conceal the 15 violations of campaign finance law/ordinance we found? (The other 4 are the late reports themselves)

Now – let’s explain the backdated signature. This is a big no-no. These are official documents. All four were date stamped 1-31-2020 but they all have different dates on them. It appears this was done to conceal the fact that they were late. These signatures were made under penalty of perjury. Now, this is why the conundrum over the date stamped copies is so important.

I hope the City of Roseville was not involved in trying to obfuscate the late reports. Since I know some of the people that work for the City, my assumption is that the City acted in good faith. Since Scott was quick to blame the city in our previous post introducing his campaign finance issues to the public, it buttresses the headline – he must have taken advantage of an inexperienced City Staffer. He’d have pulled it off had your intrepid blogger not taken up the case of Roseville’s 5th CD race.

Given my research on Scott Alvord and his pattern of trying to create a false image for himself which I will summarize again in graphic detail shortly – it is not far-fetched to draw the conclusion that Scott knew what he was doing. Scott’s later betrayal of the same staff on the Amazon hub communication is also significant – but suffice to say after City Staff apparently trying to help him (most likely unknowingly) in Jan of 2020, he set fire to them in August of 2020 and again 4 days ago on this blog.

In case you needed any other evidence: The County of Placer will follow up with candidates and committees if their form 460 are missing or incomplete. I’ve seen those follow ups a few times. It appears that the City of Roseville does as well (I saw some in the documents that they sent me via the FOIA I filed) but they may not follow up more than once. The State of California also bills for the $50 a year maintenance fee that is required of all open political accounts. Did Scott pay the $50 Bills late as well? The point is that these are two more pieces of evidence that make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Alvord knew what he was doing.

It is clear that if everything presented here is true (and I believe it is) that Scott Alvord attempted to cover up his actions. What is not clear is if or how the City of Roseville helped him. I have been told that the City Government is taking the detailed complaint I filed seriously as the evidence is there in spades of what Mr. Alvord did.

This story is not complete yet, to be continued.

Nov 062019

Take a look at this map. This is one of the four finalists and in my opinion is the front-runner for adoption. Note how District 1 and District 2 are missing a whole bunch of houses and streets? This is because this map is based on 2010.

It has been put to me by several people that Dominick Casey, the City Manager of Roseville says he fears a lawsuit by the social justice warriors more than the one Myself and others are threatening. This is likely due to Mr. Casey having tunnel vision and being a leftist himself – thus placing higher value on the opinions of fellow liberals. Mr. Casey should ask the members of the Roseville City Council who know me, or either supervisor that represent Roseville about my history. I don’t bluff.

It’s too bad that Mr. Casey wants to cost the city tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and punitive damages because of political tunnel vision.

Look at District 1 and 2. Both of those districts stand to be significantly higher in population than the other three districts in the city. This is a voting rights violation.

Also note that I had posited that two of the prime movers behind this all too early push for districts are obsessed with becoming mayor. Primarily, Scott Alvord who lives out in the West End of what would become District 2.

Several people I know have presented the idea of a Mayor elected city-wide, but those fixated on becoming mayor are having none of it. The City of Roseville has it’s charter written up so that the Mayor is chosen by being the top vote-getter in the prior election.

Note – the 3 odd districts are in one election and the 2 evens in the other according to plans I have heard.

There are a few other questions – given that the city has a spending limit that is a function of population, how is that resolved? The City limits campaign spending to $1.50 per registered voter. If Scott Alvord’s district is 30% larger how is that not against voting rights law for him to be able to spend more than the others?

Given that Pauline Roccucci and Scott Alvord appear to be fixated on the Mayor slot (according to multiple people present for city council meetings and Roseville Chamber Meetings) it appears to be another violation of the law to select a mayor from a district whose population is some 30% more than the others.

Why not elect a mayor citywide?

It is time for the Council-members to come clear to everyone about their personal agendas and it is time for Dominic Casey to stop minimizing those of us calling for sanity in the redistricting process. The social justice warriors have not even sent Roseville a letter yet (but they have sent one to Lincoln). There are not enough non-white people in Roseville to create a nexus for a false discrimination narrative that is the nexus for the threatened lawsuits against other cities.

Come clear about the agenda.

Slow Down.

Take those of us on the west side of town who actually live here seriously.

Oct 242019


I’d been told about this effort to carve Roseville in to City Council Districts coming some time ago. This blog is about a legal demand letter sent to the City of Roseville regarding a redistricting scheme being advanced by two City Councilors.

Dear Roseville City Council,

My name is Mark Meuser and I am an election law attorney with the Dhillon Law Group. I have been retained by several residents of the City of Roseville. They have requested that I address the significant legal issue of political subdivisions being drawn with significant variance in the sizes of the districts.

It is my understanding that the city council is changing from at-large districts to district-based elections for the 2020 elections. It is also my understanding that the city council is considering redrawing the lines based on the 2010 census data. However, it has been brought to my attention that approximately 20,000 people have moved to Roseville over the last 10 years that are not accounted for in the 2010 Census. It is my understanding that these 20,000 new residents are not equally distributed across the city but primarily live in one geographic area of the city which would place nearly all of the new residents in only one of the potential five new districts.

You can read the entire letter here. I did not write this letter or pay Mark Meuser, but I 100% know of its’ contents, how it was produced and was involved in the hiring of Mark Meuser to write it. I am hoping to not be forced to sign on to a lawsuit against the City I’ve lived in for the better part of the last 22 years. Myself and some friends are actively engaged in attempting to stop this attempt to end run the 2022 Census.

I do not believe that John Allard and Bruce Houdesheldt support the effort to try and district Roseville in the manner that is being proposed.

What I believe is happening is that Scott Alvord and Pauline Rocucci are the prime movers behind this push as both want to be Mayor. In the case of Scott – were the districts to be drawn using 2010 statistics, he’d end up in a district roughly double the population of the other 4 as almost all the new population since 2010 has come to West Roseville. The allegations I am hearing is that Scott believes his ticket to mayor is via such an arrangement as he’d be guaranteed to be the top vote getter. (This of course assumes Scott is re-elected once people in West Roseville find out about this issue)

I live in the part of Roseville that would get disenfranchised by this proposed City Council Redistricting proposal. I quite literally see this as fighting for mine and the rights of everyone that lives west of Foothills Blvd in Roseville. I am extremely disappointed in Scott Alvord for pushing this scheme.

I am not surprised that Pauline would participate as it appears she has sought to meet out revenge on anyone and everyone that did not support her election. My Mother had nothing but good things to say about Pauline when she was on the High School Board, but that goodwill is decimated based on reports I have been getting from insiders and her behavior, temperament (including threatening people with retaliation) and stances on key issues.

This leaves Krista Bernascnoi as the X-Factor. Insiders have been telling me she is leaning in favor of the Alvord-Rocucci plan.

The letter continues:

It is my understanding that one of the reasons for this change to district-based elections is to stop the potential liability of attorneys’ fees should a letter be sent claiming that the City of Roseville has violated the California Voting Rights Act. It is my understanding that the city has not yet received any such letter. It is important to know that according to California Elections Code 10010, should the City “pass a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large districts to district-based elections, [with] specific steps it will undertake to facilitate this transition, and an estimated time frame for doing so” the total amount that the City could be liable for the violation of the California Voting Rights Act would be $30,000.

It appears that the City is prepared to pay a demographer up to $30,750.00 to redraw the boundaries for the 2020 election. The City will be required to pay a demographer again after the 2020 Census to redraw the boundaries again (probably another $30,000). Thus the City is paying over $30,000 to a demographer to avoid the risk of paying an attorney up to $30,000 for a potential liability of a California Voting Rights Act violation that has not yet occurred, and which will need to be repeated following the 2020 Census.

Nothing in Elections Code 10010 prohibits the City Council from voting to move to district-based elections and establishing a time frame for doing so after the City receives the 2020 Census data. This appears to be a more logical course of action as it would not require the paying a demographer twice to redraw the boundaries, it would limit the city’s liability under the California Voting Rights Act, and it would preclude the potential litigation that the districts violate the Equal Protection Rights of the City.

It does not appear that the City Council is properly evaluating the transition from at-large districts to district-based elections. I hope this letter will assist you in carefully considering all the implications of your pending decisions in this matter.

For those of you that read this blog – you know I do not bluff. I really do not want to be forced to have to sign on as a plantiff in a lawsuit against the City of Roseville. Please stop. Please stop trying to control things you can’t control. If you split the city in to districts, do it in 2022 so you don’t have to do it twice or get sued and forced to do it twice. If the current scheme is allowed to proceed I will sign on to a voting rights lawsuit against the City of Roseville as a citizen whose vote will be diluted and disenfranchised by what I believe is a power grab.

P.S. Mark Meuser is the best election law attorney on the Right in the State of CA, he was also our nominee for Secretary of State in 2018.