Sunday, August 29, 2010

Schwab's House: Documents So Far... Questions Remain


Sep 10, 2006

Below is the latest information on the efforts of citizens to know the details of the Transfer/Purchase of a RDA House by the City then provided for the Private Ownership of Tom Schwab as an INDUCEMENT to LIVE IN THE CITY of Grand ..


Note: When the Divorce was is a part of public record. What is not yet known is if the MONEY actually was transferred from RDA to City for the sale of the house from the RDA to the City. OR if the Money was actually paid by Schwab to the RDA or was it actually paid to the City? There have been no proof of deposit or receipt provided the "Gadflies" concerned with the transaction.

There has been no indication that the Stipends paid to Mr. Schawab ended when he "Paid for the House". He refinanced the house when the market was at a high thus earning an added bonus at the time. Of course the housing market may have already erased much of that increase of value he borrowed on. But, IF the city continued to pay him a housing stipend what did that matter, to him.

He did not have to be "Induced" to live in GT with his wife and daughter prior to his separation and divorce. Why couldn't he have moved into the Separated, but not yet divorced man cave of an apartment like other men do when they find themselves booted out of their homes? No the King of Grand Terrace that he views himself as could not possibly live in an apartment. Nor could he risk putting his name on a house until the divorce settlement was finalized. Talk about a way to hide an asset in divorce court. SWIFT MOVE SCHWAB.

day, August 24, 2006

Follow This link :NOW WE KNOW THE CAR:

NOW we know more about the Missing Car.
The sale of a City Owned Crown Victoria to Steve Berry has also not been fully documented. There is no actual proof the car was sold, only that ownership changed hands. No record of receipt, and deposit of funds has been provided in spite of a FOIA effort was made in the past. This was a disposal of public surplus property which did not conform to the California Code for such procedures.