Those who read this blog will recall that when your intrepid blogger wrote about Clarissa Cervantes’s 2nd DUI, it was not reported as such in the Press-Enterprise. As has so often happened, your intrepid blogger does the job of the local press.
It looks like Clarissa Cervantes has a lot of enablers
Need more evidence the P-E is biased? Today, your intrepid blogger was sent a copy of an ethics complaint against Clarissa Cervantes in her role as a Riverside Council member. The Complaint was scheduled for a hearing on 11-2-2023 per this 10-20-2023 notice. See page 4, item 7 the Pre-Conference regarding Clarissa Cervantes’ complaint.
If you read the complaint, that was not mentioned as of yet in the Riverside Press-Enterprise (but you’d think it would be news given her other recent legal issues), it alleges the following:
Facts of City Code of Ethics & Conduct F. Violation of Government Code 871000 – Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes failed to disclose income on Assuming Office Statement of Economic Interest in 2021 and Failure to Disclose Income on Annual Statement of Economic Interest in 2022. She had originally certified that her statements were true and correct under penalty of perjury. The FPPC recently opened an investigation based on complaint filed on 9/11/2023: COM-09112023-02609
Afterwards, Councilmember Cervantes issued amendments to the 2021 and 2022 Statement of Economic Interest filings on 9/22/2023, confirming that the alleged violations were accurate. The original and amended returns are attached. The following incomes were not initially disclosed:
– Sabrina Cervantes for Assembly 2020 salary between $10,001 to $100,000 range.
– Cece’s Artistic Touch independent contractor income between $1,001 to $10,000 range.
– Bergmann Zwerdling Direct salary between $10,001 to $100,000 range.Facts of City Code of Ethics & Conduct M. Violations of federal, state, or local law – On July 1, 2023, Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes was arrested for Driving under the influence BAC .08 or Higher. She issued Guilty Pleas for VC M231521(A) and VC M23152(B) and was convicted on both of the charges on August 30, 2023. Her summary probation was granted for a period of 36 months on the attached terms and conditions.
(FPPC = Fair Political Practices Commission, the State Watchdog)
So – it looks like Clarissa did not disclose three sources of income. Is this because it is all Cervantes Family Money? Is it because Clarissa has been enabled for so long that she believes the rules don’t apply to her?
Take note of how she amended filings after the complaint was lodged.
It also looks like she did not disclose to the City of Riverside her second DUI Conviction, regardless of the sweetheart deal she got from the court.
People should ask themselves, if they donate to any Cervantes (Sabrina et. al.) how is that money being used? It looks like it is being funneled right back to Clarissa. Why are the categories so broad? How much actual money are we talking about? It could be several hundred thousand dollars!
Where is the Riverside Press-Enterprise? Are they preparing to endorse this disaster for Assembly District 58? Why else would a story like this get ignored?
To recap the P-E covering for Clarissa Cervantes:
It was put to me that the Riverside Press-Enterprise had reported on this first DUI in the past, but the story is nowhere to be found. It was also not easy to obtain these records through normal channels on the internet to corroborate that Cervantes is now a double Deuce.
You see, the P-E had a story about her first DUI in 2014 that you can’t find anymore. (Sources told me this) The day after we lit them up, they claimed their half-truth reporting, in particular not reporting that the 2023 DUI was, in fact, DUI #2, was because Cervantes had the first Misdemeanor expunged. Expungement does not remove the fact that it still counts as both a criminal conviction and DUI #1.
Cervantes’s first DUI was not easy to get records on. My people had to go to the applicable government offices and get paper copies of the records. Given that Cervantes and her powerful local family all have a history of antagonism towards law enforcement, there would be plenty of people out there motivated to expose the ugly truth.
How light was the sentence? Check it out:
Most people get thrown in jail for at least 30 days after DUI #2, not Clarissa. The judge let her 45 days in rehab count as time served, and the remaining 57 of the 102-day sentence will be served in Work Release. How many readers would prefer 57 days of picking up trash (but I doubt Clarissa will be anywhere close to doing that) to being in the can?
Also note that DUI #2 can be a felony in many cases, but not for Clarissa.
She was fined less than $2k! Most people pay $5,000-7,000 on DUI #1!!!
It also remains to be seen how long her driver’s license gets suspended. It is typically a year for the rest of us. This means that Cervantes will have to have staff drive her around to campaign appearances, unless the California DMV finds an excuse to not suspend her license for the typical amount of time.
I believe but have no proof that the powerful Cervantes Family has had something to do with the extraordinarily light sentence and the Press-Enterprise’s seemingly deliberate attempt to obfuscate her legal issues.
P.S. This is not the first time the Cervantes family has been in trouble with the law. In 1999 Greg Cervantes was convicted for campaign finance felonies.
