The phrase of the day is “Conspiracy to Commit Fraud” (A Federal Crime)

Investigations (Bakersfield)

661-868-5851 Phone

Pichardoj@kernda.org (Jeanette at the front desk)

Lt. Perez – dperez@kernda.org

Re: Conspiracy to Commit Fraud in the City of Ridgecrest AND the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority

June 10, 2025 4:00 p.m. PST (Originally published as a 14 min read)

By Miguel T. Tonnis

Publishers Note: This post is highly complicated. Prepare to be shocked and appalled.

UPDATE June 19th, 2025

Assembly Bills 1413 and 1466 “prohibit the courts from looking at the science.” – George Croll, General Manager of the Indian Wells Valley Water District

City Clerk Ricca Charlon, City Manager Ron Strand and Ridgecrest’s City Attorney are all very experienced public officials. The attorney says that he’s attended over a thousand public meetings in his capacity as a City Attorney. They should all know better. And yet, the City Manager and City Attorney allowed the City Clerk to block Mayor Travis Endiott and Councilman Skip Gorman from placing AB 1413 and AB 1466 on a future agenda during the May 7, 2025 City Council meeting. The video of the May 7th meeting is below.

“Either you knowingly violated the Brown Act by discussing a position made by consensus of the Ridgecrest City Council without appropriate public notification and reporting, or you perjured yourself at a hearing by claiming a position that was not legally substantiated.” – Scott O’Neil Letter to the Editor – Daily Independent

Is this dust-up in Ridgecrest a mere Brown Act violation or a widespread conspiracy to commit fraud and a federal crime? As is always the case in a fraud conspiracy, the question becomes not only who is involved, but how much money is involved. In this case, there’s a whole lot of money involved, and the ones feeding at the trough of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority are our suspects.

These are the two bills in question, AB 1413 and AB 1466. Without going into the details of the bills, they’re accumulating a large number of opponents in Sacramento and locally as well.

• https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1413/2025
• https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1466/2025

As George Croll, the General Manager of the Indian Wells Valley Water District explained in very simple terms at the June 9, 2025, water district meeting, “they prohibit the courts from looking at the science”.

After describing how impressed he was with the Kern County Board of Supervisors for holding a special meeting on May 5th in Bakersfield, Councilman Gorman requested the same public discussion at the City of Ridgecrest. However, City Clerk Ricca Charlon informed the council that a “consensus” was required, and Mayor Travis Endicott was the only hand that was raised to support Gorman’s request.

Charlon, Strand and the City Attorney knew full well that a consensus wasn’t required, yet they said nothing when Charlon made the rule of “consensus” out of thin air. Councilman Kyle Blades said “I’m feeling pretty good” after stopping Councilman Gorman’s motion to place AB 1413 and AB 1466 on the agenda, and that was the end of it.

FRAUD IS NOT A LEGAL STRATEGY!

During the Board of Supervisor’s meeting, representatives of the City of Ridgecrest were called on by Supervisor David Couch to answer questions he had about whether or not the city council had ever made any attempt to inform the public about the two bills and whether or not the city actually voted to support the legislation, either in a public setting or a closed session.

Blades danced around Couch’s questions, saying that it was the city’s “legal strategy” and repeatedly stated that there had been no Brown Act violation. Finally, City Manager Strand stepped up to the microphone to clear the air. “No” said Strand, the City Council had not approved or discussed the two bills, AB 1413 and AB 1466, in a public meeting, and it wasn’t clear whether or not the city had discussed any of this in a closed session.

The City Attorney has never previously reported out of closed session on any actions with regards to supporting these two bills and fraud is not a “legal strategy”.

Federal law takes fraud-related offenses seriously, and 18 U.S.C. 1349 is a key statute used to prosecute individuals involved in fraudulent schemes. This law specifically targets those who conspire to commit fraud, even if the actual fraud never occurs. Prosecutors often use it to charge multiple people connected to financial crimes, making it a powerful tool in white-collar criminal cases.

You can watch the video of the Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting here in the “KABOOM” Post which was first published 9 days after the supervisors met in an emergency meeting held in Bakersfield on May 2nd. At the end of the meeting, Supervisor Philip Peters demanded to know who had called the meeting as it was apparently called without his knowledge. Supervisor Peters is the county representative on the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority. (Edit added 6/17/25)

The question then becomes, how widespread is the fraud and where is the money or incentive to cause the conspirators to go to such lengths to cover it up?

As the record will show, and below you’ll find the evidence, City Manager Ron Strand, City Clerk Ricca Charlon and Council Members Kyle Blades and Scott Hayman are alleged to have engaged in an egregious violation of the Brown Act.

“We all need to pay attention and get involved” – Scott O’Neil’s 2nd letter to the Daily Independent

This story isn’t just about a dust-up at the City of Ridgecrest concerning The Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, it’s about corruption and fraud and in this case, it’s a potential federal crime.

It’s also about people on the Indian Wells Valley Water District’s Board of Directors and residents such as Scott O’Neil, a well-respected community leader who is a former director of NAWCWD, China Lake.

Six out of ten members of the city council and water district are active or former DOD employees, and all of them are above reproach, with the possible exception of Kyle Blades.

You see, it appears that the Groundwater Authority likely initiated the bills and orchestrated their introduction in Sacramento. There’s a lot of money at stake.

The attempt at a cover-up begins here (Timestamped to begin at 1:05:34):

Watch as Blades gushes over City Clerk Ricca Charlon after Councilman Skip Gorman, a retired DOD employee, and Mayor Travis Endicott, a current DOD employee, attempted to have a public discussion on the agenda regarding AB 1413 and AB 1466.

Blades is a hometown boy, and he’s “feeling pretty good” about all of this. Why is he feeling good? Should he?

The Bottom Line is at the Indian Wells Valley’s Groundwater Authority, i.e. the GA’s “Feeders at the Trough” who are the attorneys, consultants, engineers and on and on.

The Groundwater Authority is fearful that the Science will prevail, and as Mr. Croll at the water district said, the intent of this legislation is to prohibit the courts from looking at the science.

In the simplest of terms, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority is fearful that their science sucks. The Indian Wells Valley Technical Working Group’s study is far superior in both quality and quantitative science. We hope that the judge in the case of Mojave Pistachios, LLC v Indian Wells Valley Water District, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01187275-CU-OR-CJC, has the opportunity to pass judgement on the science. That won’t happen if AB 1413 and AB 1466 pass the State Senate and they are signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

We have a better way of describing this whole S**T SHOW:

What is the Brown Act?

The Brown Act is a California law enacted in 1953 that ensures the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies, promoting transparency and accountability in government. It requires that meetings be conducted openly and that proper notice is given to the public.

Feel free to peruse the evidence below. this story is only just beginning to get everyone’s attention and it’s going to be very interesting:

Below is a link to the video where Blades makes false statements to the State Assembly committee:

Also see below the undated letter signed by Mayor Pro Tem, Kyle Blades showing former Mayor Eric Bruen as Mayor and Blades representing that the City of Ridgecrest supports Assembly Bill 1466. “The City of Ridgecrest supports Assembly Bill 1466 (Hart)”. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. You won’t have to read the letter or try to understand what it says, it’s a gross misrepresentation from the very beginning.

The damage has been done and the bills passed in the Assembly on June 3rd and are moving on to the State Senate.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Diane Papan, Chair
AB 1413 (Papan) – As Amended March 24, 2025

Click to access ab-1413-papan.pdf

Ricca Charlon, Ridgecrest’s Long-time City Clerk

Charlon said at the May 7th meeting, “I just need to know that we have a consensus of the Council so that I can put it on there”. When has there ever been a rule that says the placement of items on the agenda has to be approved by a consensus? Charlon pulled the wool over their eyes and she got away with it.

Charlon also stated that she forgot to change the Mayor’s name from Bruen to Endicott. However, she didn’t forget to change the name of the Mayor Pro Tem from Hayman to Blades before he traveled to Sacramento with Strand and Hayman to testify before a committee that the City of Ridgecrest urges the support of AB 1413 and AB 1466.

The City Clerk, the City Manager and the City Attorney are lying to you by omission. They all know that by precedent over many years, the City Council has never required a “consensus” or majority to place an item on the Agenda.

The attorneys invoked “attorney-client privilege” and the city clerk invoked “consensus” to silence Endicott and Gorman. Again, no consensus was required by the rules on May 7th, and Charlon made the “consensus” rule up out of thin air. The City Attorney and City Manager allowed her to do so.

The City has scheduled a special meeting in Closed Session on June 11th, 2025 in the afternoon at 3:00 pm. Items listed on the Closed Session meeting include the adjudication lawsuit that is currently pending in the Superior Court of California. Maybe they’ll vote to support the two bills ex post facto. That would be a really stupid thing to do in closed session.

They will also discuss Rules of Order for Council Meetings in a closed sesson. What does that mean? After 60 years of Cityhood, they’re only now discussing Rules of Order? And why does this need to be in closed session?

In fact, “Rules of Order” are not an exception in the Brown Act. There are very limited exceptions that are allowed to be discussed behind closed doors. Rules of Order should absolutely be discussed in an open session.

CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Existing Litigation (GC Sec. 54956.9)
Mojave Pistachios, LLC v Indian Wells Valley Water District, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2021-01187275-CU-OR-CJC

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM(S)

1. Council’s Consideration Of Rules Of Order For Council Meetings

This begs the question, why are they hiding behind closed session, and how they can assert “attorney client privilege” or “consensus” to place an item on an agenda is beyond me. (Update June 16th, they didn’t discuss “rules of order”.)

How big is the CONSPIRACY and what are its impacts and consequences?

The two Assembly bills are a very big deal in the larger scheme of the Department of Water Resources and its implementation of SGMA by groundwater authorities across the state. Water and energy security are critical for the U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense at China Lake.

It appears that the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority orchestrated the creation of the two bills while conspiring with the City of Ridgecrest through their representative on the Groundwater Authority, Councilman Scott Hayman, to lobby on behalf of GA in Sacramento.

Based on what we’ve seen in public, the actions taken were never disclosed on any agenda or as an action taken during a closed session.

There was never any vote or authorization by the majority of the City Council to write a letter to legislators in Sacramento or to testify at a committee meeting, and certainly not to testify that the City of Ridgecrest supported the legislation.

There was never any public disclosure or debate in advance of the hearing in Sacramento on April 8th, and at no time did the City Council bring this action up for a public discussion as an Agenda item.

With so many questions regarding the conduct of Blades and the City of Ridgecrest, it’s not a stretch to ask the question, is this a “Conspiracy to Commit Fraud”?

You be the judge.

Eric Bruen – Former Mayor – City of Ridgecrest Implicates Himself