Past Election Fraud In the City of Signal Hill Ca.

 The present corruption in Signal Hill began over two decades ago when the big land developers attempted a take over of City Hall. The proposed new residential development had the potential of over a billion dollars in new housing. The big land owner in Signal Hill, Craig Barto, who owns Signal Hill Petroleum, and the construction contractor, Southwest Diversified Inc, planed to cover the hill in giant 4 story condo compounds. Among many problems, the giant buildings would completely destroy the existing residential views on the hill and property value would take a huge drop. This created a political battle between the high density developers and the City Council. To battle the Council, the developers spent huge sum of money to  Finance  their own candidates. It’s unknown how much money was actually spent by the developers. In the campaigns of Sara Hanlon and George Papadakis, the developers donated at least $17,000 in two elections. In the 1980’s, an average campaign cost about $1,000.

In the 1980’s, the City Council was completely replaced by a Council to battle the developers and defend residential rights of the people.

In 1982, Louis Dare and Gerard Goodhart were elected to the Council and with runner up Richard Ceccia, took 60% of the vote over 5 other candidates. Dare defeated real estate broker and present Councilman, Mike Noll with 307 votes.

In 1984, Richard Ceccia and Jessie Blacksmith were elected and Councilman Dave Bellis was re-elected. It was Dave Bellis who led the fight against the developers. These 3 candidates received 60% of the vote over several there candidates. In this election, the developers donated $12,139 in support of George Papadakis and two other candidates according to records.

In 1986, Sara Hanlon defeated Councilman Dare after $5,000 was donated to Hanlon campaign by the developers. About a year later, in 1987, Dare was re-elected in a special election after Councilman Bellis resigned.

In the 1988 election, Ceccia, blacksmith and Dare were re-elected with 67.2% of the vote over 4 other candidates.

In 1990, single challenger, Carol Churchill and Councilman Goodheart received 70.4% of the vote over Sara Hanlon.

The Council was overwhelmingly supported by the voters and the developers were left holding an empty sack. This started a campaign of corruption that has continues to this day. To date, we have found 5 elections that show conclusive signs of election fraud.

In 1992, present Councilman Noll, Hanlon and Papadakis ran for City Council against Ceccia, Blacksmith and Dare. Present Councilman, Larry Forester was the President of the newly Founded Political group, “The Concerned Citizens of Signal Hill” and present Council members, Ellen Ward and Mike Noll were high ranking members. According to records, Southwest Dinersified donated $27,500 to a Political Caucus in support of the 3 challengers. The Political Caucus donated $10,000 to the CCSH and Barto donated $4,000 to CCSH according to records. Obviously, the CCSH was only a front for the developers. Forester denied any connection with Brato or Southwest, but reported spending $17,245 in support of the 3 challengers. This left over $10,000 in donations that were unaccounted for and with hundreds of Millions of dollars to be made, Noll and Hanlon defeated Blacksmith and Dare through obvious election fraud. Ceccia was barely re-elected after losing a huge lead over Papadakis.

                                                1992 Election                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       In 90% of the Polling Vote Cast from Precincts 1,2,3,4 and 6, the majority of voters supported the Council.

Precincts 1,2,3,4,6     [{C’s Lead}        {B’s Lead}          {D’s Lead}]

Ceccia; 550 = 18.8%             0                              0                                0

Black ; 495 = 16.9%             55                             0                                0

Dare  ; 479 = 16.3%             71                             16                               0

Noll   ; 461 = 15.7%           {89}                        {34}                         {18}

Hanl  ; 428 = 14.6%         {122}                       {67}                          {51}

Papa  ; 353 = 12.0%        {197}                      {142}                        {126}

Miller(159 =  5.4%)        391                           336                             320   

         2,925 = 90% of the Polling Vote

In 90% of the polling vote and 64.8% of the entire vote, the Council took 1,488 votes with 52.1% of the vote. The top 3 challengers took 1,242 votes with 42.4% of the vote. The Council was leading by 10% with 246 votes over the top 3 challengers.

In the remaining 10% of the Polling Vote Cast from Precinct 5, we found massive Fraud.

Precinct 5                   [{N’s Lead             {H’s Lead}              P’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 25 =  7.8%       {60}                         {58}                          {38}

Black :  17 =  5.3%        {68}                         {66}                          {46}

Dare  :  15 =   4.7%       {70}                         {68}                          {48}

Noll  85 = 26.7%            0                                0                                 0  

Hanl :    83 = 26.1%            2                                0                                 0

Papa :   63 = 19.8%            22                              20                               0

Miller : 30 =   9.4%          55                              53                               33

           318 =  10% of the Polling Vote

In precinct 5, the Council only took 57 votes with 17.9% of the vote and the top 3 challengers took 231 votes with 72.6% of the vote. The top 3 challengers were leading by 54.7% with 174 votes over the Council. The Council’s average dropped 34.2% and the 3 challenger’s average increased 30.2%. Precinct 5 only produced 7% of the entire vote and the only residence was the brand new Willow Ridge condominium. Prior to 1992, this precinct was completely industrial and no votes were ever recorded in precinct 5. The vote for precinct 5 points directly at Voter Registration Fraud.

In 28.1% of the vote cast by absentee, we found massive fraud.

Absentee Vote                  [{N’s Lead          {H’s Lead}           P’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 132 = 10.3%             {168}                    {174}                     {134}

Black : 102  =  8.0%             {198}                    {204}                     {164}

Dare : 99 =   7.7%                {201}                    {207}                      {167}                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Noll  :  300 = 23.6%                    6                               0                             0

Hanl :  306 = 24.0%                   0                                0                             0

Papd : 266 = 20.9%                  36                               40                           0                                                                                                                                                          Miller:  65 =   5.1%                  241                             235                        201

       1,270 = 28.1% of entire Vote

In the absentee vote, the Council took 333 votes with 26.6% of the vote and the top 3 challengers took 872 votes with 68.6%. The 3 challengers were leading by 42% with 539 absentee votes over the Council in only 28% of the vote. In the 1988 election when the 3 Council members last ran for re-election, only 8.4% of the vote was cast by absentee.

The 1992 election produced nearly twice as many absentee votes as the last three elections combined. That’s, 1,270 absentee votes in 1992, and a total of 652 absentee votes in the 1990, 1988 and 1986 elections combined. This is massive Voter Registration Fraud.

If a candidate takes 20% of the polling vote, that candidate well take about 20% of the absentee vote. The polling and absentee vote is collected through out the city and there is no difference between polling voters and absentee voters. Miller’s  vote shows no sign of tampering with only a two percent difference between his over all polling vote and his absentee vote.

In 90% of the polling vote, the voters clearly supported the Council. This vote shows no sign of tampering. By using the candidate’s average from 5 out of the 6 precincts, we can estimate the candidate’s final tallies. This is only a measuring tool and is not met to be exact.

                                                         Calculated Tally

Candidate’s average in 90% of the Polling Vote. {4,513 Votes Total}

  Preduced Tally                [{C’s Lead}           {B’s Lead}           {D’s Lead}]

Ceccia: 18.8% =   {848}               0                                0                              0

Black ;    16.9% = {762}              86                               0                              0

Dare   ;   16.3% = {735}             113                               27                            0

Noll    : 15.7% = {708}            [140]                          [56]                       [27]

Hanlo :14.6% = {658}            [190]                        [104]                       [77]

Papa  : 12.0% = {541}            [307]                        [221]                     [184]

Miller: {5.4%} = {243}             605                             519                         492

.                             4,495 = 99.6% of the Entire Vote    

PREDICTION: Miller, With a total of 4,513 votes, times {5.4%} equals 243.7 votes, using the % key on a calculator.

The prediction clearly shows the majority of voter re-elected the Council.                                                                                                                                                                                                   Predicted Tally               Official Tally               Prediction Results

Ceccia :     {848}    Minus    {707}    Equals      [141 Missing Votes]

Black  :      {762}     Minus    {614}    Equals      [148 Missing Votes]

Dare   :      {735}      Minus   {593}    Equals      [142 Missing Votes]    Total:                            2,345     Minus     1,914      Equals     431 Missing Votes

Official Tally                  Predicted Tally             Prediction Results

Noll    :      {846}     Minus      {708}     Equals      [138 Extra Votes]

Hanl  :      {817}      Minus     {658}      Equals      [159 Extra Votes]

Papd :      {682}      Minus      {541}      Equals      [141 Extra Votes]                      Total:      2,345       Minus      1,907      Equals      438  Extra Votes

Miller:     {254}      Minus       {243}     Equals    {[11 Extra Votes]} 

           4,513 Total Votes

      Mathematics can not lie, two apples plus two apples always equals four apples, it never equals five apples.

The prediction clearly shows this election was fixed. The prediction is not exact, however, it’s proves to be extremely accurate. Out of a calculation of 4,513 votes, Miller’s prediction is only off by 11 votes and two tenths of one percent. There was no reason to sabotage Miller’s vote. According to the prediction, there were 438 extra votes and 431 missing votes with a difference of 7 Votes. However, the numbers may match exactly. Obviously,  ballots were pillaged from the Council and illegal ballots were added for the 3 leading challengers through voter registration fraud. There is no question the ballots were tampered with.  After Ceccia was leading Papadakis with 197 votes in nearly 2/3 of the entire vote, Papadakis took 172 votes over Ceccia in the remaining vote. Ceccia defeated Papadakis with only 25 votes. This is not only ridiculous, this is obvious fraud, The fixed absentee results were released first to cover up the polling fraud. When the absentee results were made public that evening, the top 3 challengers already had a huge lead over the Council. This is how the saboteurs cover up such an obvious case of fraud. In State and Federal elections, the polling vote is always counted first for this very reason.

Four years earlier, the Council ran against former Council members, Bob Randle, Nick Mikis, Marion “Buzz” McMallen and new comer, Linda Jackson.

1988 Election

Precincts 1 Through 3                Precincts 4 and 6                Polling Totals

Ceccia     : 367 = {22.2%}   Plus   255 = {25.6%}   Equals   622 = {23.5%}

Dare        : 343 = {20.8%}   Plus    243 = {24.3%}   Equals   586 = {22.1%}

Blacksm.: 316 = {19.1%}   Plus    232 = {23.2%}   Equals   548 = {20.7%}

Randle    : 180 = {10.9%}   Plus      84 =   {8.4%}    Equals   264 = {9.9%}

Mikis       : 178 = {10.7%}   Plus      81 =   {8.1%}     Equals   259 = {9.7%}

Jackson   : 135 =  {8.1%}   Plus      66 =   {6.6%}     Equals   201 = {7.5%}

McCallen:   86 =  {5.2%}    Plus      35 =   {3.5%}     Equals   121 = {4.5%}               .                1,649 = 57.0%                    996 = 34.4%                     2,645 = 95.2%

The polling average for all seven candidates remained consistent with little change in all 5 precincts.  Precinct 5 was completely industrial and no votes were recorded in precinct 5.

  Absentee Vote                                Polling Totals                   Official Tally

Ceccia       : 50 = {20.5%}   Plus   622 = {23.5%}    Equals    672 = {23.2%}

Dare          : 56 = {23 .0%}   Plus    586 = {22.1%}    Equals    642 = {22.2%}

Blacksm.  : 50 = {20.5%}   Plus    548 = {20.7%}   Equals     598 = {20.7%}

Randle     : 29 = {11.9%}    Plus      264 = {9.9%}    Equals      293 = {10.1%}

Mikis        : 33 = {13.5%}    Plus      259 = {9.7%}    Equals       292 = {10.0%}

Jackson   : 12 =   {4.9%}    Plus      201 = {7.5%}     Equals       213 = {7.3%}

McCallen: 13 =   {5.3%}    Plus       121 = {4.5%}     Equals       134 =  {4.6%}         .                  243 =   8.4%                    2,645 = 91.6%                       2,888 = 100%

   All seven candidates show less then a 4.6 % change in their average between the their vote in all 5 precincts and the absentee. The voter support for each candidate remained consistent through out the city. The 1988 election shows no sign of fraud.

The $14,000 donated to the CCSH financed a huge slander campaign with misleading phone calls to the voters and false propaganda flyers. One flyer claimed the new residential view ordinance would only protect Councilman Dare’s view and no body else. Dare signed the ordinance into Law when he was Mayor in 1990. Before the ordinance was signed, Dare stated in public, “There is no ordinance protecting my view.” Dare’s statement was twisted into this outrages lie. This is a prime example of the vicious slander that was distributed by Forester, CCSH and the Signal Tribune who played a major roll in this slander. A copy of the flyer is available by Emial. There can be no doubt this election was fixed and the 3 challengers were bought and paid for by the developers. In fact, Barto bought Hanlon a new house.

According to information obtained at City Hall in 2009, Hanlon resigned in 1996 at the end of her 4 year term in office and Forester was appointed to the Council in 1998. This is false information. According to the press, Hanlon resigned in 1992 about 6 months after she was elected and Forester was then appointed to Hanlon’s seat on the Council.  This was intentional, Hanlon had already made plans to leave the State before she ran for Council. Obviously, after all these years, City Hall is trying to hide this fact.

In 1994, Tina Hansen defeated Churchill after a huge sum of money was donated to Hansen campaign by the developers. The CCSH conducted the same slander campaign with phone calls and propaganda flyers. This election shows no obvious signs of tampering, however, Noll, Forester and Hansen took control of the majority vote on the Council. In fact, no Council member has been defeated since 1994.  City Clerk Cathy Pacheco was also elected in 1994. Among others, it was Pacheco who committed fraud in the 2007 election which is documented.

In 1996, there was no election, the Council voted their self an extra year in office after Southwest left Signal Hill and Barto hired the new contractor, ComStock Inc.

In 1997, Goodhart resigned in mid term and Forester was appointed to Goodhart’s seat. Only Cessia and Noll ran on the ballot in 1997 and Ed Wilson was elected to the Council. This election shows no obvious signs of tampering, however, Forester avoided election for two more years.

The 1999 election was obvious fixed when Forester had to run for City Council. In  60% of the polling vote, challenger Bob Mendoza was leading Forester with 23 votes.

60% of the Polling Vote        

Precincts 1,2,3,4                   H’s Lead               M’s Lead                  F’s Lead

Hansen     : 267 = 39,0%                 0                               0                                 0

Mendoza : 187 = 27.3%            80                               0                                0

Forester  : 164 = 23.9%           103                           (23)                             0

Pallares    :  66  =  9.6%                201                             121                             98

                  684 = 60% of the Polling Vote / 34.9% of the Entire Vote

In the remaining polling vote, Forester took 34 votes over Mendoza. Forester over came a 23 vote deficit with an 11 lead in the remaining 40% of the polling vote. This is rediculous. Mendoza’s average dropped 5.3% and Forester’s average increased 5.3%. Obviously,  ballots were taken from Mendoza and replaced with the same number of illegal ballots given to Forester. The number of ballots must match the number of the polling voters that signed the precinct index before voting.

468 = 40% of Polling Vote     

Precincts 5,6                     H’s Led                F’s Lead                    M’s Lead

Hansen   :  202 = 43.1%            0                             0                                   0

Mandoza:  103 = 22.0%          99                        (34)                                0

Forester:  137 = 29.2%        65                            0                                  0

Pallares  :    26 =  5.5%             176                         111                                77

                  468 = 40% of Polling Vote / 30% of the Entire Vote     

In the remaining 26% of the vote cast by absentee, Mendoza’s average dropped 11.1% and Forester’s average jumped 10.5%. Forester took over twice as many absentee votes as Mendoza. Forester defeated Mendoza with 85 votes in which 74 votes were cast by absentee.

Absentee Vote {25.9% of the Entire Vote}

Absentee Vote                  H’s Lead                  F’s Lead                    M’s Lead

Hansen    :     189 = 46.5%            0                                  0                                   0 

Mandoza : 66 = {16.2%}       121                              (74)                               0                                                                                                                                                  Forester : 140 = {34.4%}       49                                  0                                   0

Pallares   :     11 =  2.7%             178                               129                                 55              

                   406 = 26% of Entire Vote

This is conclusive Voter Registration Fraud, 87% of Forester’s lead over Mandoza was cast from 26% of the vote. This election produced a total of 1,558 votes.

In 2001, Ceccia resigned and Ellen Ward was elected to the Council. This election shows no obvious sign of tampering.

In 2003, Forester and Hansen ran unopposed for re-election. No official announcement was made for the up coming election until after the dead line to file papers for candidacy. This should have been head line news in the Signal Tribune by at least the beginning of November. The official announcement was found in the Signal Tribune in February, buried in the legal notice section in small print. The election was held on March 2, and no campaign signs were up until just before the election. The Signal Tribune is controlled by City Hall and the paper has never announced an up coming election on the front page.

After about 1/3 of the polling vote is cast, the candidate’s average is already establish in an honest election. The candidate’s average would remain consistent thought out the election. The small town of Signal Hill is only 2.2 square miles with a population of about 11 thousand people. The voters are mainly middle class home owners. There is no reason why the voters on one side of town would vote any different then the voters on the other side of town.

In 2005, Nancy Long, Carol Churchill and Louis Dare ran for City Council against Noll, Ward and Wilson.

2005 Election                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        In nearly 1/3 or 31.6% of the Polling Vote  

Precincts: 1Through 3        Wi’s Lead              N’s Lead              Wa’s Lead

Wilson; 101 = 19.9%                         0                               0                              0

Noll     ;  88 = 17.3%                       13                              0                              0

Ward   ;  88 = 17.3%                      13                              0                               0

Long   ;   88 = 17.3%                      13                            [0]                           [0]

Church;  78 = 15,4%                     [23]                         [10]                         [10]

Dare    ;  63 = 12.4%                       38                             25                             25

              501 = 31.6% of the[ Polling Vote  

In the first three precincts in nearly 1/3 of the polling vote, it’s certain Wilson will win and Dare will probably lose. However, we have a very close race between the four other candidates.

In just over 2/3 or 68.4% of Polling Vote, we found massive fraud. 

Precincts 4 Through 6      Wi’s Lead              N’s Lead             Wa’s Lead

Wilson  : 255 = 23.3%                      0                              0                                0

Noll      : 240 = 21.9%                      15                             0                                0

Ward   : 234 = 21.4%                       21                             6                                0

Long    : 155 = 14.1%                  [100]                     { [85]}                     {[79]}

Church: 126 = 11.5%                  [129]                     {[114]}                   {[108]}

Dare    :   83 = 7.5%                      172                           157                          151

           1,093 = 68.4% of Polling Vote 

In the first 3 precincts, the Council was leading the challengers with only 48 votes with a 9% lead. In the last 3 precincts, the Council was leading the challengers with 365 votes with a 33.2% lead. The Council’s lead over the challengers doubled 7.6 times in just over twice the vote. The Council’s average increased 12.1% and the challenger’s average dropped 12.1%. Just like the 1999 election,  ballots were taken from the challengers and replaced with the same number of illegal ballots given to the Council. In nearly 1/3 of the polling vote, Long, Noll and Ward were tied with 88 votes, Churchill was only trailing by 10 vote. In just over 2/3 of the polling vote, Noll took 85 votes over Long and Ward took 79 votes over Long. Wilson’s lead over Churchill doubled over 5 times with 129 votes. Ward’s lead over Churchill doubled nearly 11 times with 108 votes and Noll’s lead over Churchill doubled over 11 times with 114 votes. This is conclusive fraud through massive ballot tampering.  If a candidate’s lead goes from 10 votes to 114 votes in just over 2/3 of the vote, you can bet your life the ballots were tampered with. According to the Law of averages, Noll and Ward’s lead over Churchill would only increase to about 30 sum odd votes. Wilson, Noll and Ward’s lead over Long, Churchill and Dare is just plain ridiculous.

Absentee Vote        {42.4% of the Entire Vote}    

Absentee Vote              N’s Lead                Wi’s Lead                Wa’s Lead   

Noll    : 265 = 22.4%            0                                 0                                  0

Wilson: 234 = 19.8%             31                                0                                  0

Ward  : 232 = 19.6%             33                                2                                 0

Long  : 173 = 14.6%             92                              61                               59

Chur : 163 = 13.8%           102                              71                              69     

Dare : 111 =  9.4%              154                           123                             121

        1,178 = 42.4% of Entire Vote

     In the absentee, the Council took 731 votes with 62.1% of the vote. The 3 challengers took 447 votes with 37.9% of the vote. The Council was leading the challengers with 284 votes with a 24.2% lead. When compared to the vote from precincts 1 through 3, the Council’s lead over the challengers increased 53.1%. We can only conclude the absentee vote was also tampered with through voter registration fraud.

The absentee results were release first to cover up the polling fraud. In the absentee, Ward started with a 59 vote lead over Long and Noll started with a 92 vote lead over Long before the results for the polling vote was released.

The Council’s increase in their lead over the challengers is completely astronomical and out right ridiculous. In the first 3 precincts, the election was a tight race with the exception of Wilson and Dare. It’s probable all 3 Council members would have been re-elected any way, however, the officials were making sure with complete over kill. There is no doubt the officials intentionally made an example of old rivals. For many years, Churchill and Dare have spoke out in public against the Council and the corruption at City Hall.

During the campaign, the City planted flat out lied in the Signal Tribune. In a letter to the Editor, titled,  ”Integrity of information in question” City Commissioner, Tom Benson, wrote a well written letter with big fancy words attacking the challenger’s character. Benson claiming Dare was both a liar and a hypocrite! When Dare spoke of view protection during the campaign, Benson claimed the Council had never changed the view ordinance as Dare stated in public. In the mid 90s, the ordinance was altered and many people lost their views as a result. In fact, after Dare signed his own “personal view protection plan,” according to Forester and the CCSH, Dare lost 95% of his ocean view to new housing. Benson didn’t mention this fact. Instead, Benson claimed Dare supported the giant condos when he was on the Council and  cared nothing of view protection in the past. When Dare spoke of the City’s financial stability establish in the 1980s, Benson gave the credit to the present Council. Benson promoted the Council and claimed the challengers would only create chaos if given the power of office. Benson’s letter was nothing more then well written trash. The only truth in Benson’s letter is the title and it points directly at Benson and the City Council.

City Commissoner and Associate Publisher of the Signal Tribune, Steve Strichart, published an article referring to “Shady Candidates and Corruption in the Past.” This slander was directed at Churchill and Dare. Unlike the present Council, Churchill and Dare wouldn’t sell out to the developers which cost them their seats on the Council. Now you know the corruption in the past is sitting in the City Council chambers. Since the 80s, the Signal Tribune has served as a propaganda platform to mislead the pubic in which Strichart’s article is a prime example. Back in the early 90s, the Signal Tribune worked side by side with Forester and the CCSH. Furthermore, if not for the financial support by the City, the Signal Tribune would have gone bankrupt long ago. It’s widely known the city controls the Signal Tribune. Both Benson and Strichart were appointed by the City Council to City commissions in Signal Hill and they received a pay check from the City. The fact that both Strichart and Benson were employed by the city was never mentioned. Strichart’s article was signed,” Associate Publisher” and Benson letter was signed,” Resident of Signal Hill.” Be aware of what you read in the local press.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the City Council supported the people who put them in office. It was this Council that laid down the financial foundation that the present Council takes credit for. The City gets most it’s in come through sells tax with in the city. In the early 80s, the City Treasury was nearly empty. It was the previous Council that brought in the Auto Mall, the Home Depot, the Price Club which is now Costco and numerous other businesses in the 1980s. These companies supply the bulk for city’s income. The present Council also takes credit for the single family housing. In the mid 90s, condos lost their popularity and the Council simply followed the money. The three things the present Council can take credit for is the two strip joint in Signal Hill, the new garbage recycling center and the fact that they are incredible liars. Credit should go where credit is due.

All 5 elections fixed in the past show the exact same pattern. The tampering is always found in the last precincts and the absentee vote. In all elections that show no  signs of tampering, the candidate’s average or voter support remained consistent in each precinct. Their absentee vote was also consistent with their polling vote. In the 4 election in question, we find the exact opposite. The vote in the first precincts is like night and day compared to the vote in the last precincts and the absentee vote.

So far, we have covered some of the election fraud in Signal Hill. This is an example of the corruption behind the fraud. When you build a new house in Signal Hill, you must pay the city an Environmental Impact Fee, if you don’t meet the city’s dead line for completion. This has nothing to do with the fee. The fee pays for city services for the increase in the city’s population. After ComStock built about 1,400 new homes in Signal Hill, the City Council waved all of the impact fees. This completely stinks to high Heaven with kick back money. The developers save Millions on Millions of dollars and the city lost Millions on Millions of dollars. Regardless of the Council’s excuse, waving the fee was given before they ever broke ground. This is why the Council installed their fee waving policy in the first place and this is why the developer’s money put the majority of Council members in office with the exception of Wilson. The public was never told how much money was actually waved. There is a multitude of corruption in Signal Hill, however, if we covered all of the corruption, this report would turn into a book.

So make no mistake, both the Council and the city paper work for special interest and not for you. The only possible reason the city officials would risk prison by fixing their own election is the TAX PAYER”S MONEY.

Copes of the election documents showing the candidate’s vote by precinct and absentee are available by Email at or

PLEASE leave a comment and express your opinion. Good or bad, we would like to hear from you.

Written by Concerned Citizens against Political Corruption in Signal Hill

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s