I think every parent of a teen should ensure their child knows what these accidents actually look like. One 17-year-old’s decision last Friday night crushed two families. Not just the Ortiz family — the kid’s own family is torn up, too. And it’s not out of the realm that parents can find themselves facing devastating civil liability after something like this. Both sides are paying for one teenager’s choices.

I was going to write this last week. It took me a minute to even wrap my head around what happened to the Ortiz family. These tragedies just keep happening in our community, and each one hits harder than the last.

Just last year, the intersection of Newhall Ranch and Bouquet Canyon — right where this latest horror unfolded — saw 11 collisions. Part of a stretch of Bouquet Canyon Road that has seen a steady climb in serious crashes and ranks among the deadliest roads in the state. Against this backdrop, what happened next feels heartbreakingly predictable.

This past Friday night, February 6, at 11:15 p.m. — just 15 minutes after California’s provisional driver curfew for minors kicked in — a 17-year-old Hart High School senior came flying down Bouquet Canyon Road in a massive truck, allegedly impaired, and slammed into a family heading home from church at the intersection of Newhall Ranch and Bouquet Canyon.

This could have been any one of us. That night, the unlucky people who suffered the consequences were Genry and Patty Ortiz (some outlets also reported the mom as Sylvia Lux—likely a legal or maiden name), devoted parents and pillars of Ebenezer Church. Genry was the kind of dad who always volunteered for every church potluck and never missed one of Erin’s band concerts. Patty dedicated her weekends to organizing the neighborhood toy drive every December, ensuring no child ever felt left out at Christmas. They were killed. Their 25-year-old daughter, Erin, is fighting for her life with what her family calls “life-altering injuries.” Two lives erased in an instant. One young woman’s future was shattered. A family ripped apart.

We know we have this problem. We’ve built a memorial to it.

We are the community that has a section of Central Park called the Youth Grove, with 123 tree stumps representing youth who have been killed in traffic-related accidents. Think about that for a minute. What other city has so many dead kids that we needed a permanent memorial in our main park?

The California Highway Patrol used to hit the high schools right in the gut with a program called “Every 15 Minutes.” For two straight days, it turned our high schools into living nightmares. Kids got pulled out of class every fifteen minutes — one for every person who dies in an alcohol-related crash in America that day. They watched a staged wreck right on campus: twisted metal, fake blood, sirens blaring, “parents” getting the phone call no one ever wants to receive. Then came the mock funerals and the retreat where students wrote letters to their “dead” friends and sat with real families who had actually buried their own children.

It was brutal on purpose. It was supposed to scar them — so they’d never make that choice.

It was the spiritual successor to the old Red Asphalt films the CHP used to show back in the ’60s through 2006 — those graphic, unflinching crash videos that the LA Times once called “the Reefer Madness of driving: Forget trying to reason with teenagers, just scare ‘em.” I might be old-school on this: everyone on the road should know what driving recklessly looks like. Look at the picture above. It is a miracle that anyone walked away from that car at all. Every 15 Minutes took that same shock value and made it personal. And for years, it actually worked here in Santa Clarita. It changed how a generation of our kids thought about getting behind the wheel.

The program still exists statewide. But we haven’t seen it locally since 2019. Whether it was funding, priorities, or something else, the result is the same. We stopped doing something that once made an impact.

I’m not here to say every bad thing requires a new law. Tragedies happen. But this wasn’t a “tragedy.” This was the predictable, preventable outcome of a culture in Santa Clarita where too many parents let their kids act as if they’re invincible — and treat the law as optional.

This is directly connected to another growing problem. eBikes.

This isn’t just about one crash. It’s about the broader culture we’ve allowed to grow — where speed is normalized, rules feel optional, and too many parents assume “it won’t happen to my kid.” Some of these electric motorcycles that kids are riding through our community are not cheap. Take the E-Ride Pro SS 3.0 — $5,000 with a top speed of 62 mph. You wouldn’t give your 12-year-old an electric Honda Civic; it is no different from giving your child an illegal e-motorcycle that can go 60+ miles per hour. A couple of kids on one of these machines led CHP Newhall on a high-speed chase while wearing a bicycle helmet. What 13-year-old has five grand lying around? These purchases are adult decisions — and they carry adult-level responsibility.

When kids grow up learning that rules don’t apply to them on a bike, that mindset doesn’t magically disappear when they get a driver’s license.

A few months ago, I watched a kid on an e-bike blow through a non-lighted crosswalk with just a sign. He yelled to his friend that they had to stop for us. A truck stopped abruptly about 3 feet from him, bumper at head level. He would have been killed instantly. These machines are a danger not only to others but to the kids riding them.

Just search “ebike” on Nextdoor, and you’ll find a community at its breaking point—parents enabling this chaos, kids treating our trails and streets with reckless disregard for everyone.

• One neighbor on the trail under Avenue Scott got spit on in the face by a teen on a fat e-bike, with three friends riding behind him, laughing.

• Another walker on the Santa Clara River Trail had a 14-year-old on a motorized bike hurl rocks and fireworks at her 16-year-old son as they passed.

• A woman driving up Apple Street had two kids on a bike spray sticky liquid all over her freshly washed car.

• Multiple reports of the same pack of teens on e-motorcycles spraying people, throwing water balloons at drivers’ heads, and terrorizing pedestrians on the trails from Bridgeport to Sierra Estates.

These aren’t “kids being kids.” These are children being handed adult-level machines with zero adult-level supervision.

The sheriff has started responding — last week alone, they impounded seven more illegal e-motorcycles in a single operation in response to community complaints. Those parents now have to explain their decisions in court. There was a meeting in June to discuss e-bikes, where Lt. Barclay (Now Captain) was asked about the impounds, and he said they were mostly due to stopping street takeovers. It’s alarming that our community is now at the point where we’re dealing with street takeovers. But one bust isn’t enough. Most of these parents don’t even know these bikes are illegal on public roads and trails.

So, what can be done?

Hart District: Contact parents to inform them that bikes are not allowed on campus and that any brought to campus will be confiscated and turned over to the Sheriff’s Department. Yes, I checked, and students are riding these eBikes and eDirt Bikes to school. Seems like an easy one to me.

The City: Do better. Put up more signs. Install cameras in the hot spots. Start logging these groups of kids on illegal bikes. Create a simple way for people to submit video and photos — a website, an app, whatever. Treat this the same way you treat graffiti: track repeat offenders and ask the public for help.

Ask the Sheriff’s Department what they actually need. Every time this topic comes up, we hear broader crime statistics. But those numbers don’t address what residents are experiencing on the paseos and trails. Every week, more kids get these machines. This is a safety and quality-of-life issue that deserves far more urgency than it’s receiving.

The City continues to publish columns in the Signal, but that assumes the families who need this message are reading it. If parents are unaware that many of these bikes are illegal on public roads and trails, then clearly our outreach isn’t reaching the right audience.

Sheriff’s Department: I get it — you’re at the mercy of the city, county, and state. But the city has found money when it mattered. They paid for two deputies with offices in City Hall before. You guys have your own e-motorcycles now. What do you need from the city to get those into regular use? I don’t think there is a magic bullet to solve this problem.

Pilar Schiavo & Suzette Martinez Valladares: You work in a town that overregulates everything. People can’t buy a plastic gun that shoots salt at bugs in California, but a 12-year-old can walk into a store and buy a high-powered electric motorcycle capable of highway speeds? This should be an easy bipartisan issue to fix. I agree with Captain Barclay: education is important, but if our laws don’t carry consequences for the people who make this a thing, or no one is enforcing them consistently, people tend to blow them off.

Every e-bike and e-motorcycle should have a VIN registered to the owner. Buyers should be required to carry liability insurance. And parents who buy these illegal machines for minors should face stiffer penalties — real fines, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If a kid gets cited on one of these things, they shouldn’t be able to get their driver’s license until they turn 18.

This has to stop

If you’re a regular reader of this Substack, do one thing right now: open your email and send a message to your City Council members, Hart Board, and your state representatives.

Be respectful. Don’t get nasty. Just tell them, straight up, you would like this to be a higher priority.

Because if we keep treating it as a minor annoyance, we’ll end up adding more stumps to the Youth Grove.

Santa Clarita deserves better.
Our families deserve better.
And the Ortiz family — God rest their souls — deserves justice.

AccountableSCV will continue to report on issues that warrant public scrutiny. If you value this kind of unfiltered, independent coverage, consider subscribing to support the work.

The Saugus Union School District board opened its recent meeting by celebrating empathy—handing out awards, offering polished remarks about compassion, and reminding the audience how important it is to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes.”

What followed made clear just how selectively that principle is applied.

Once public comment began, the tone shifted from ceremony to reality. Parents, teachers, and community members spoke candidly about classroom safety, student behavior, and a growing sense that those closest to the problem are no longer being heard. The emotional center of the evening did not come from the dais, but from the floor.

Natalie Epstein spoke through tears as she described the moment she learned her five-year-old son had wandered off campus and was later recovered unharmed. She spoke of the lingering fear, the daily anxiety, and the unanswered questions that followed. “I cry every day thinking about my son on the street,” she said. Her remarks were not rhetorical. They were a plea for accountability—one echoed by other parents who described similar incidents and a pattern of deflection rather than reform.

Linda Valdez, speaking on behalf of teachers, pushed back against claims that classroom behavior issues stem from educators' refusal to implement district-mandated programs. Teachers, she said, are using the required frameworks. The problem is not compliance—it is capacity. No amount of training replaces the need for consequences, staffing support, and administrative backing when classrooms are disrupted or unsafe.

The meeting also included a moment that echoed prior concerns about procedure and decorum. During public comment, parent Karen Carville referred to Superintendent Colleen Hawkins by name, without using the title “Dr.” Trustee Katherine Cooper—who was not presiding—then interjected multiple times from the dais to correct the phrasing. Under standard meeting procedures, including Robert’s Rules of Order and the district’s bylaws, enforcement of decorum during public comment rests with the chair, and interruptions are limited to genuine violations such as time or disorder. This is not the first time Cooper’s public comments have raised questions about adherence to basic meeting rules. At minimum, the conduct warrants formal review, and Carville would be justified in filing a complaint—regardless of whether district leadership acts on it.

Spoiler Alert: They won’t.

TimBen Boydston underscored that point directly. He reminded the board that these are nonpartisan positions and that leadership cannot be evaluated if people are never allowed to lead. “Every person has the ability to perhaps lead in a good way,” he said. “If they are not given that chance, then they’re not going to be able to show you. No one can do anything by themselves. They have to have a team.” Boydston knows this firsthand, having been denied the opportunity to hold the talking stick—the mayoral title—while serving on the City Council. That sentiment framed the night’s central question: whether Anna Griese would be given that chance.

Speaker after speaker made their position unmistakably clear. Teachers, union leadership, and parents spoke about trust, access, responsiveness, and the need for leadership willing to confront escalating behavior and safety issues rather than deflect them. They wanted Anna Griese as board president. The vote that followed made just as clear how little that input mattered to the majority seated behind the dais.

And then the optics finished the story.

After the vote, the district’s meeting feed captured celebratory handshakes and fist bumps with individuals who had just spoken against Griese. There was no attempt to hide it. It didn’t resemble reluctant professionalism after a difficult decision. It looked like a victory lap—reinforcing the impression that the outcome had been settled well before the meeting ever began.

Subscribe now

What happened next only reinforced that impression.

A second video, filmed by Karen Carville on her phone, captures what happened moments later near the exit. One of the same individuals—who had just been seen fist-bumping Trunkey—approaches kindergarten teacher Ingrid Boydston and moves directly into her personal space.

Boydston did not escalate. She did not shout. Instead, she invited the individual to visit her classroom and observe instruction firsthand.

That response matters.

Boydston took offense not only on her own behalf, but on behalf of teachers who had just been publicly accused of refusing to implement district-mandated programs. She said those accusations are false. Boydston, like the teachers who work alongside her, follows the district’s required frameworks every day—often while managing extreme behaviors with inadequate administrative support. Saugus Union leadership appears more interested in arguing over who is right. Good leaders focus on what is right.

According to witnesses and the video, the exchange escalated to the point that other teachers intervened and described the conduct as “uncalled for,” particularly after the individual being filmed began personally attacking the parent recording the interaction. Rather than addressing the substance of the situation, the response shifted to familiar deflection tactics—personal accusations used to derail scrutiny rather than engage with it. This was not a disagreement over policy. It was a breakdown of professional conduct—par for the course. When someone cannot attend a school board meeting without escalating into personal confrontations, the issue is not disagreement. It is behavior.

The video above speaks for itself. One clip shows the post-vote celebration inside the chamber, with timestamps linking directly to the moment it occurs. A second clip shows what followed near the exit. Readers can watch the sequence and draw their own conclusions.

Why is this problem largely unique to Saugus Union?

Nearby districts face the same post-pandemic pressures, serve the same communities, operate under the same state mandates, and educate students growing up in the same screen-saturated culture. They use many of the same instructional and behavioral frameworks—yet they are not experiencing the same levels of classroom disruption, staff fear, or unresolved safety incidents.

Did district leadership somehow hire an entire workforce of incompetent teachers? That explanation is not credible. SUSD employs experienced, credentialed educators—many with decades of classroom experience and many who have successfully taught in other districts without these outcomes. The more plausible explanation lies elsewhere.

Over the past two decades, the number of school administrators has grown dramatically relative to both students and teachers, while educational outcomes have stagnated or declined. This expansion of administrative layers has not translated into better classrooms. Instead, it has increased costs, diluted accountability, and shifted responsibility away from those making instructional decisions.

What topline numbers often fail to capture is the growing administrative burden placed on teachers. These burdens represent real costs in staff time, diminished instructional capacity, and widespread burnout. Special education teachers, for example, now spend more time each week on paperwork than on grading, communicating with parents, collaborating with colleagues, and attending Individualized Education Plan meetings—combined.

When administrators need another TPS report, teaching stops—and no amount of new programming fixes that. That is not a teaching failure. It is a structural one.

At this point, a familiar deflection appears: money. When leadership runs out of answers, the problem is framed as a lack of “investment” or “commitment” by the public. This move shifts blame onto taxpayers while quietly assuming—without evidence—that more spending automatically produces better outcomes. It doesn’t, and no leadership operating with that mindset will succeed.

This is where the conversation about Saugus Union goes wrong. While my son was in SUSD, we encountered many capable, dedicated educators. The recurring failures were administrative. Decisions about discipline, placement, staffing, and consequences are made at the level above the classroom.

There are bad teachers, as there are bad professionals in any field. But the broader pattern points elsewhere. Charter schools, private schools, military schools, and homeschooling all demonstrate what is possible when expectations are clear and authority is enforced. Institutions without consequences do not reform themselves.

The answer is not endless funding increases. It is accountability—and, when necessary, real alternatives that force systems to change before families vote with their feet. Increasingly, consolidating Santa Clarita’s five school districts into one merits serious consideration to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and improve teacher efficiency.

Emotions neither prove nor disprove facts. There was a time when any rational adult understood this. But years of dumbed-down education and an overemphasis on how people feel have left too many unable—or unwilling—to separate emotional reaction from factual reality. The result is everywhere: aggressive confrontations at school board meetings, city councilmembers shouting down residents for telling inconvenient truths, and school board members interrupting public comment to make petty jabs—such as correcting titles earned long ago instead of addressing the substance of what is being said.

Empathy is not something you hand out once a year and then pat yourself on the back.

It is something you practice—especially when the people closest to the problem are brave enough to speak out. The real issue is an entire district leadership choosing to ignore their cries for help and then blaming them for the very problems they are trying to fix.

AccountableSCV will continue reporting on Saugus Union and other local governance issues that warrant public scrutiny. If you value careful, independent analysis of education policy and local decision-making, consider subscribing to support this work.

At the center of the controversy is the selection of the board president, a role that is often misunderstood. Much like a mayor in a council-manager system, the board president does not run the district. The position is largely ceremonial, responsible for presiding over meetings, setting the tone, and acting as the public face of the board for the coming year. Precisely because the authority is limited, the intensity of the backlash surrounding this vote is revealing. Elevating Griese would give sustained visibility to critiques of institutional decay that others would prefer remain muted.

That reaction brings us to the real reason Anna Griese has become a target.

Anna Griese’s offense is not that she lacks qualifications, misunderstands policy, or violates governance norms. Her offense is that she publicly challenged Superintendent Colleen Hawkins when discipline failures and campus violence were escalating. While other trustees avoided confrontation and deferred action, Griese repeatedly pressed for answers, demanded accountability, and insisted that student and teacher safety be treated as an immediate concern rather than a distant goal. In an environment where political careers often deteriorate under pressure, Griese’s willingness to confront district failure has strengthened her credibility in the eyes of many early doubters.

In doing so, she violated the most important unspoken rule in education governance: never confront the superintendent publicly while failure is plainly visible to anyone paying attention. That act alone explains the coordinated effort to block her from any visible leadership role. The goal is not to disprove her arguments, but to ensure the public never seriously engages with them. That pattern helps explain why these controversies recur so regularly.

What makes the attacks on Griese particularly weak is that they are contradicted by the district’s own admissions. In an email shared with this Substack, Superintendent Hawkins outlined the current status of the district’s behavior and discipline initiatives.
The picture that emerges is not one of control or clarity, but of fragmentation and delay, accompanied by familiar assurances that improvement will come with time, once the district resolves basic questions of supervision and enforcement.

Hawkins and most of the trustees have failed to deliver consistent academic and behavioral outcomes. Their expansion into amateur psychology, sociology, and social philosophy is difficult to explain, except that they are doing so with other people’s money and experimenting on other people’s children. This dynamic is far more common in education than in most other fields; few people would be confident—let alone comfortable—in any other industry, arguing that a lack of self-esteem produces felons or that its presence produces scholars. Yet American schools are saturated with the belief that self-esteem and social-emotional learning must come before performance rather than result from it. The idea that confidence is earned through competence and effort, rather than distributed in advance by institutions, is increasingly absent from American schools.

According to the district, there is no active full Behavior Council. Instead, work has been broken into multiple subcommittees with no unified implementation schedule. Enforcement of behavior strategies is described as “wholly dependent” on individual teachers, with an acknowledgment that some struggle to implement the programs and others refuse outright. Most strikingly, the district concedes that full implementation may take three to five years.

This matters because violence and disruption are not theoretical future problems. They are present realities. When safety issues are escalating now, a multi-year rollout built on voluntary compliance is not a plan. It is an admission that leadership has ceded control. Speak privately with educators inside SUSD, and a consistent pattern emerges: reports of a hostile environment and retaliation toward those who raise concerns. That reality helps explain why increasing numbers of ignored teachers have been speaking out at board meetings to be heard.

Against this backdrop, it becomes easier to understand why teachers began expressing support for Griese quietly rather than publicly. She has been the only trustee consistently willing to press leadership on safety and discipline failures. That persistence makes her inconvenient to those who prefer managed meetings over uncomfortable questions. Elevating her visibility would risk exposing just how thin the board’s defenses really are.

Instead, the response has followed a familiar pattern: information leaks, activist amplification, and a manufactured narrative designed to justify keeping her sidelined. Despite the online noise, however, teacher support for Griese is not ideological. It is practical. Teachers understand what district leadership avoids stating plainly: you cannot teach effectively in chaos, you cannot build “culture” in unsafe classrooms, and you cannot ask staff to absorb escalating behavior issues while waiting years for institutional fidelity.

This is not a left-right issue. It is a working-conditions issue.

Unable to defend the district’s performance, Griese’s critics have instead turned to labeling. The invocation of the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority, combined with guilt-by-association arguments, is not meant to clarify facts or improve governance. It is meant to end the debate. Rather than demonstrating that Griese violated policy, disrupted meetings, or misrepresented the district, opponents focus on tone, “energy,” and associations as substitutes for substantive argument.

The contrast between Griese and her fellow trustees is not subtle. She listens to teachers and parents, even when the feedback is uncomfortable. Others have responded to dissent very differently. In 2018, then-board president Chris Trunkey publicly apologized after the Saugus Teachers Association filed a complaint about actions taken during his re-election campaign, including researching a union leader’s voting record, which the union described as an attempt to “dig up dirt.” This is just one example; a quick search of this substack will give a laundry list of head-turning scandals that were met with Hawkins saying “nothing to see here keep moving.”

When outcomes cannot be defended, accusations replace arguments, and disagreement itself is treated as evidence of wrongdoing rather than a basis for discussion. This pattern did not emerge overnight. As previously documented by AccountableSCV (here and here), efforts to sideline Griese have followed a familiar trajectory: selective leaks, activist amplification, and the substitution of accusation for argument.

That is not accountability. It is social discipline disguised as concern.

Ultimately, the board is not choosing a savior or a strongman tonight. It is about the signal the board chooses to send to staff, parents, and the community. One option says that order, safety, and accountability still matter. The other says that tone, process, and institutional comfort matter more than outcomes.

If Anna Griese is selected as board president, it will not be because of activist pressure or online noise. It will be because the teachers' union has made it clear they are no longer willing to absorb systemic failure in silence. If she is not selected, that decision will also speak volumes—because no substantive justification has been offered for denying her the role.

I don’t know what will happen tonight, but one thing is clear: Anna Griese can no longer be ignored. As the saying often attributed to Gandhi puts it, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Griese is now firmly in the “fight” stage. Whatever the outcome, the record is public. When it mattered most, one trustee asked hard questions while others looked away. No amount of labeling can erase that.

Stay tuned for continued reporting and analysis by subscribing to AccountableSCV. If you value careful scrutiny of local governance and education policy, consider supporting our work through a paid subscription.

The excuses came quickly: untrained substitutes, unlocked gates they claimed were “required” to remain open for fire safety, and general confusion. Board member Anna Griese, who’s spent years advocating for better safety protocols, immediately dismissed those explanations for what they were—deflections born of incompetence. When my son, a former Saugus Union student, saw the news article, he put it bluntly: “SUSD — a proud history of negligence and overall incompetence.”

Unfortunately, he’s not wrong. Instead of addressing the safety failures she’s been warned about for years, Superintendent Colleen Hawkins has repeatedly gone out of her way—both publicly and behind the scenes—to attack Board Member Anna Griese, one of the only people actually trying to hold her accountable. Meanwhile, Hawkins collected an eye-popping $$337,402 in total compensation last year, one of the highest salaries in the valley. Try making that paycheck square with her dismal results. It’s hard to imagine a more reckless or more dangerous way to run a school district than allowing decisions to be made by people who never pay the price for being dead wrong about literally everything.

My expectations are modest: educate children to read, do math, and understand the world—basic academic and life skills. Yet Hawkins cannot even keep students physically safe on campus, let alone provide a solid education, while simultaneously deciding the district should involve itself in shaping children’s gender identity. That mandate came from no parent; she took it upon herself while the fundamentals collapsed around her, and it became impossible to view this as anything other than arrogance layered with incompetence. Every parent should be outraged.

And this wandering-child incident wasn’t a fluke. It fits a much larger pattern under Hawkins, whose leadership philosophy seems to revolve around loyalty over competence. Parents across Santa Clarita know precisely what I’m talking about. Hawkins blocks parents on social media—at least eight accounts, despite claiming it was “just one.” She stonewalls public records requests. She implemented a reckless email deletion policy, wiping district communications after only two years, which conveniently erases long-term patterns of negligence or abuse. Yes, California law allows destruction after that period, but no rule requires districts to wipe everything that quickly. Most keep records far longer. Hawkins herself admitted the real reason was reducing the “manpower” needed to respond to public requests, mind you, the public records requests they are ignoring. When a superintendent tells you transparency is too time-consuming, believe her.

Her priorities have become painfully clear over the years. Instead of focusing on academics or safety, she promotes Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) programs that sound good in brochures but accomplish little for actual student achievement. In an August 2025 message, Hawkins blamed phones and tablets for kids’ loss of empathy, insisting that children today struggle with self-regulation. Let’s call a spade a spade: SEL is just critical theory packaged for kids, and critical theory—whatever flavor it comes in—depends on maintaining tribal resentments. How are kids supposed to thrive when they’re told they must share a classroom or playground with an “oppressor”? This Substack covered the bullying spike 18 months ago, and the district’s response was the same as always: nothing to see here, folks—move along.

I get it—this wasn’t Hawkins’ intention. She believes she knows better than you and constantly prioritizes ideals over practical consequences. But it says “social-emotional” right in the name?! Then why have kids become less empathetic?

Could it be what Ibram X. Kendi openly preaches: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination”? How exactly do you discriminate against people while simultaneously claiming to teach empathy? You can’t. It’s the core contradiction of the Leftist brainrot now pumped into schools by administrators like Hawkins—ideology over integrity, dogma over results. Maybe technology plays a role, but it’s hard to preach empathy in a culture that rewards political tribalism and perpetual outrage. Kids absorb what they hear at home and see online, and no amount of SEL jargon can paper over the real crisis—a district that somehow can’t ensure a five-year-old stays on campus.

The same disconnect shows up in their discipline policies. Restorative justice under Education Code § 48900.9 sounds noble until you realize it often allows violent students to face little to no consequences at all. I saw it firsthand. My child was attacked at school by a boy who shouted he “did not deserve to live,” then slashed his nose with a zipper hard enough to draw blood. Under Hawkins’s watch, the attacker was sent back to class. No discipline, no accountability, nothing. If you look at any post where this article was posted, it's just more of the same. Not long after, my son suffered a hairline fracture on the playground, went to the nurse, and was sent back to class without anyone contacting us. We found out when his grandma came to pick him up and noticed he was limping. That was the moment we moved him to the Newhall School District (NSD), and it was the best move we made in every way.

The leadership dysfunction goes deeper than Hawkins alone. Board President Katherine Cooper has been accused of violating the Brown Act for attacking critics outside official meetings. Parents have testified that Hawkins coached allies to undermine Griese, misrepresented safety incidents, and ignored bullying concerns after cutting counselor positions. The district even sued twelve parents over IEP disputes—a stunning choice for a district supposedly committed to “collaboration.” And let’s not forget the push for a $190 million bond sold to voters with fear-based messaging, or the fact that 33 letters from parents at Emblem Academy reportedly went unanswered over two years.

Despite these mounting failures, Hawkins recently announced she’ll retire on July 1, 2026, citing personal hardships and family milestones. Those hardships deserve sympathy. But the timing is hard to ignore. The district is falling apart, she finally lost the board, and she wants out before accountability arrives.

Ironically, I don’t even have a dog in this fight anymore. My kid isn’t in SUSD. But I warned friends—including one who lives right across from Bridgeport—that under no circumstances should they send their child to SUSD unless they want them to be illiterate and confused about their own biology. That might sound harsh, but it’s the ecosystem SUSD has cultivated.

So what should Saugus Union do now?

First, the board should place Hawkins on administrative leave. She has spent years crafting policies that protect her from consequences, but California law still allows a superintendent to be removed by a simple majority vote of no confidence. She is not untouchable, no matter how loudly she insists she is. With leadership like this, who needs saboteurs? The results speak for themselves. Don’t let her make things worse than they already are.

Second, the district cannot hire internally. After eight years of Hawkins promoting ideological allies and loyalists, the pipeline is too compromised to produce a competent successor that can try to unring the bell. Bringing in an outsider—someone with no ties to the existing dysfunction—is the only way forward.

Third, a real independent audit is long overdue. Not a friendly internal review or a sanitized board summary, but a comprehensive investigation into spending, safety failures, the email deletion policy, social media censorship, high staff turnover, and the quiet talks with developers about the Santa Clarita Elementary site, a campus Hawkins spent around $16 million refurbishing, only to close it. And now you have a closed-door meeting with a developer to discuss demoing the school and putting up what condos?

Finally, the district needs to rediscover the basics: keeping kids safe, teaching them to read, enforcing real consequences for real misconduct, and treating parents as partners rather than nuisances. SEL worksheets and buzzwords won’t fix what’s broken. Competence will.

Santa Clarita deserves better than wandering children, collapsing literacy rates, runaway staff turnover, and ideological experiments disguised as education policy. The slow-motion collapse of SUSD isn’t a mystery—it’s the predictable outcome of a district that stopped prioritizing its most important responsibility: the kids.

Stay tuned for these revelations and more by subscribing to AccountableSCV. Consider supporting us through a paid subscription to help us continue exposing the political theater unfolding in the city council chamber.

Yes, Marsha was skipped—and yes, that probably traces back to the political crime of refusing to bend the knee to Weste years ago—but fairness isn’t what’s driving this decision. Never has.

Laurene doesn’t want the mayor’s seat because she loves running meetings or cutting ribbons at the latest boutique yoga studio. She wants it for one reason:

The ballot designation in an election year.

That tiny line of text lets low-information voters believe she was actually elected mayor when she wasn’t. She’s pulled this trick almost every election cycle. Oh, look—Laurene Weste is mayor again… must be an election year.

In truth, this has long been part of Santa Clarita politics. Everyone from Bob Kellar to Frank Ferry has worked the ballot-designation game. Ferry even ran that infamous “Mayor Dude” campaign — and despite the branding, he doesn’t ride a skateboard and didn’t even know what Twitter was when the whole thing launched.

It isn’t new, and honestly, I’m not that mad about it. I just feel like someone should start calling balls and strikes. This is always a political move — it reminds me of the Wizard of Oz using theatrics to look bigger and more powerful than he actually was.

Which is why it’s so funny that Miranda felt the need to write a book after his first stint holding the talking stick, as if he had led some heroic farm-workers march from Newhall to Sacramento. Calm down, bro—you weren’t Simón Bolívar. The Fro-Yo shop was opening either way.

But Miranda’s political self-mythology isn’t some new trend—it’s just the latest chapter in a long Santa Clarita tradition of inventing villains and fairy tales.

Back in 2015, Gloria Mercado-Fortine launched what became known as the infamous “Wilk Mafia” scare campaign. After losing her reelection bid on the Hart School Board, Gloria fired off a dramatic farewell email claiming the election had been stolen by a shadowy political syndicate supposedly run by then-Assemblyman Scott Wilk. She even named alleged conspirators—Steve Knight, Sharon Runner, Bob Kellar, Laurene Weste, Marsha McLean, and others—painting the whole thing as some grand right-wing coup that stretched from Palmdale all the way to Washington, D.C. Wild stuff.

It was a disingenuous attack across the board. Both parties endorse candidates. Voters decide whether those endorsements matter. Gloria never seemed bothered by the fact that, at one point, Buck McKeon’s endorsement could basically hand someone a public office, which she gladly partook in. This was just pure old-guard resentment: a don’t hate the player, hate the game type of situation. Like it or not, politics is a team sport. Gloria and Bruce were always in it for themselves; they would claim to be Republican or Democrat depending on what was most convenient in the moment. People generally don’t trust a person like that. Gloria wasn’t cheated; she was outmaneuvered. The voters didn’t choose her.

The accusation was ridiculous then and looks even sillier now.

Wilk never served on Santa Clarita’s City Council. His political rise ran from the College of the Canyons board to the State Assembly and then to the State Senate—well outside the municipal faction politics Gloria claimed he controlled. Wilk didn’t run a machine; he irritated machines and often broke them. His refusal to rubber-stamp development deals is exactly why Gloria, Bruce Fortine, and Diane Van Hook despised him.

Wilk became “a thing” because the guy just worked harder than everyone else. As one democrat friend once said, Wilk could be up 13 points in the polls and still run his campaign as if he were down 10. He has one volume—crank it to eleven, Spinal Tap style. Farmers’ market in Simi? There he was giving out “Got Wilk” tote bags. Comedy charity fundraiser that night? Wilk is sipping wine and charming the room. Wilk was built different; if a voter left him an angry voicemail, most politicians would never return it. Wilk saw it as an opportunity to turn a hater into a voter.

There was no Wilk Mafia.

What did exist at the time was Gloria’s sour-grapes campaign against anyone who stood in the way of her losses—and that fantasy was eagerly embraced by the newly arrived publisher of The Santa Clarita Signal, Chuck Champion, whose name alone suggests a messiah complex.

Champion bought the myth wholesale. He whined endlessly about Wilk’s so-called “undue influence,” despite running a small-circulation paper and having zero local political footing. He seemed to believe his personal grievances should outweigh the reality that Wilk had repeatedly been elected by the voters. Political endorsements aren’t undue influence—they’re pre-approved by the electorate. No one elected Chuck Champion, and showing up out of the blue and telling everyone to agree with you was a losing strategy from the beginning.

His crusade peaked when he pushed aggressively to have Gloria appointed to the open City Council seat created when Dante Acosta moved to the Assembly—a tactic widely credited with backfiring and helping pave the way for Bill Miranda’s appointment instead. Champion, wielding his armchair law degree, insisted the city must appoint a Latino councilmember to satisfy the California Voting Rights Act and that the Latino should, of course, be his new BFF, Gloria Mercado-Fortine. It was total nonsense; they could have appointed whoever they wanted. But the City Council played along. Ironically, Champion’s so-called “undue influence” is what helped cause the very appointment he claimed to oppose.

Things became downright bizarre when someone—almost certainly Champion—mailed a manila envelope with a printed photo of one of Wilk’s staffers to a few people’s houses, including mine, in what looked like an attempted intimidation stunt. When it arrived, I didn’t even recognize the woman. I ran a reverse image search and found her LinkedIn profile—it all clicked immediately. This was the guy with a newspaper doing clown-level antics like that?

If Champion had an actual story, he would’ve printed it immediately. Instead, the episode became his lasting legacy. Within a year, he was remembered as the publisher “who got bilked” and quietly exited town with his tail between his legs. The Budmans came in afterward to clean up the sheets, both figuratively and literally. Wonder if he ever found his mustang? That is a story for another time.

Santa Clarita is no stranger to corruption and accusations of corruption. Patsy Ayala worked for Scott Wilk; she would have been lumped into what Gloria Fortine labeled the so-called “Wilk Mafia”—granted, at a low level, but still close enough to see how this last year likely looks to those paying attention. We are not impressed with your rookie year. Bill Miranda would have fit that category, too; he was endorsed for appointment by Wilk and immediately put through the wringer once he took office over some rinky-dink legal entanglement that Chuck Champion used to smear him.

Fast-forward to today, and we see an actual corruption with the Weste Mafia, where Weste automatically has the votes on anything she wants. Patsy and Bill are now marching in lockstep inside Weste’s political machine— shielding the boss from accountability, and operating with a discipline no prior City Hall bloc ever managed.

Patsy spent years working under Scott Wilk, a politician who actually understood strategic leadership—knowing when to fight and when not to spring pointless traps. He could also read a room. Patsy’s strategy seems to be to yell at hot rooms. Wilk lost it on Steve Knight for Knight’s idiotic association with cosplay revolutionary Tim Donnelly and their pointless protest vote against banning Confederate imagery on state property. Wilk knew better: pick real battles, avoid symbolic stupidity, and never attach yourself to sideshows. That independence earned him cross-aisle respect. A year into her tenure, Patsy seems to have learned none of it; she has built no trust or goodwill with the public or an independent political identity: no agenda, no leadership profile, and no visible backbone. Her political brand is being Laurene Weste’s lap dog.

No councilmember has had a worse year behind the dais than Laurene. It is bizarre to me that Patsy now acts as Weste’s human shield—standing front and center at hostile meetings while the boss stays insulated from backlash. And here’s how tonight is going to play out. Boss Weste will install herself as mayor and secure the prized ballot designation, giving her a super incumbency advantage. Patsy will likely become Mayor Pro Tem, which, if tradition holds, would make her mayor in 2027—one year before she would need to face reelection. Not a particularly savvy move. On a divided council, the real power lies with the swing vote. Why pick a side? Is this what we should expect from the Weste Mafia in the future? Weste, Ayala, and Bill rotate leadership roles while Gibbs and Marsha watch. Like the people who voted for them don’t matter?

So here we are again.

Boss Weste will take down the mayor’s crown. Her capos will clap on cue. Santa Clarita’s residents remain the underdogs on their own city council—forced to live under the Weste Mafia’s rule for the foreseeable future.

Stay tuned for these revelations and more by subscribing to AccountableSCV. Consider supporting us through a paid subscription to help us continue exposing the political theater unfolding in the city council chamber.

But leftist flag freak-outs are as inevitable as bad traffic on the 405—fast-forward eight years to 2022, where the so-called "progressives" demanded unity under one flag after suffering 10-12 seconds of mild offense while watching sophomore Wyatt Hawk run onto the Saugus High football field with a Thin Blue Line flag, instead of one of their pre-approved leftist revolución banners! What is this? How dare he?! A young person who doesn’t hate the cops, doesn’t adore Che, doesn’t read Marx for fun, and isn’t obsessed over gender identity? Where is the leftist brain rot? This kid is practically a hate crime in human form. They claimed this piece of fabric made some kids feel unsafe! oh the humanity, won't somebody please think of the children?! They cried that it was a political symbol aligned with the far right and had no place at school events. The grifters were on full parade, with their self-declared grand marshal, Valerie Bradford, leading the charge under her newly minted NAACP Santa Clarita branch (which may or may not be a registered non-profit, definitely do not click here to look for it). She was stomping mad and wasn’t going to let even one black person suffer the tiniest offense. All these “fragile” other people must change their ways and do exactly as we say in this strongly worded press release that is not going to blow things out of proportion at all.

They trotted out the usual playbook: labeling the Thin Blue Line a "political message" tied to the "far right"—because these days, what isn't "far right" to these clowns? Breathing? So grown adults went out of their way to steamroll young Wyatt Hawk's right to express himself, ignoring that he was simply honoring his grandparents' decades of dedicated public service in law enforcement—his grandmother a 20-year LAPD veteran, his step-grandfather putting in 30 years on the force. These leeches, who've never given anything back to this community, were out to strip him of that right without batting an eye. Instead, they screeched about how it was spotted at January 6 and Charlottesville, forever "tainting" its meaning with hate, setting the perfect precedent for banning any symbol that offends their delicate sensibilities. Message received, loud and clear: if a flag offends, if it's a political message, if it's associated with extreme political views, it's outta here. And of course, spineless pantywaist Mike Kuhlman, the district superintendent, bent the knee faster than you can say "woke capitulation," penning some mealy-mouthed gobbledygook statement kissing the feet of the mob. How did the valley respond at the next Saugus game after his statement? The stadium was packed with people waving Thin Blue Line flags, trading one 10-12 second sighting for a full two hours of it being everywhere. The mob that Kuhlman kowtowed to managed to get one mouth breather with a sign saying "Go Home Nazis"—not very good Nazis if you can harass a stadium full and walk away in one piece. Legend has it this is when Kuhlman knew it was time to look for greener pastures. Good riddance.

But here's where it gets good—the hero didn't back down. Wyatt Hawk dared to protest peacefully, without torching a single building or blocking traffic, which absolutely sent the leftists into orbit. Valerie Bradford was beside herself, wailing that it was an "act of defiance and divisiveness"—this was definitely a racism. Oh no, not defiance and divisiveness—how dare a teenager stand up for what he believes without resorting to chaos and violence! I thought you leftists loved a mostly peaceful protest?

But these stories from the past aren't ancient history—they're a pattern with this group, where everything is an emergency, and people will literally die if you don’t do exactly what they say. We keep waiting for the emergencies, and they just never come—perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, they are just kids, and you should leave them alone and stop acting like they are unstable sticks of nitroglycerin. Kids have survived world wars, pestilence, famines—they don’t need you hovering over them acting like you are their own personal Jesus Christ. They are never concerned with academic performance or competency in reading and math basics; they're only concerned with reproducing more good obedient leftists. Life skills be damned—let's make sure they know how to have unconventional sex. Gotta make sure kids know about butt plugs—only the best, moms, pass this valuable information on. Hey kids, did you see how to give a good blow job? That's good money on OnlyFans. I keep trying to send you the image from the book in the library, but Facebook keeps hitting me with a strike for porn. This is why you don’t see the books that groups like Moms for Liberty are fighting to take out of our schools… btw, the image above was banned even with the blurred-out sex parts posted, and still got hit with a second strike—so Meta really doesn’t want people to see what these people want our kids to see and has some explaining to do.

Now, let's dive into the meat of their outrage machine—the "dem points" they're peddling like it's the end of the world. They have some real bangers in there, like “harms students.” So if a child doesn’t constantly see a diversity flag, they are harmed? What are they like, Tinker Bell, who will die if there aren’t enough gay flags? This is your list? Are you sure you don’t want to call a friend? To which ever mouth breather wrote this gibberish, you are attempting to create people that are not ready for the world they are entering, life is not gonna nerf anyone for their sexual preference. Once again, you don’t get to whine about freedom of speech for teachers when you actively squelched a student’s freedom of speech. You are a sad, terrible person, just like Phillies Karen, trying to steal from kids to make yourself feel better.

So how can you help Tonight?

Well, email the board and let them feel that you want our schools back to move away from indoctrination and get back to educating our kids—politely, of course; let the leftists be the rude and violent ones. Leftists are raising a bunch of broken people, and we can’t allow that to happen to our kids. Hart isn’t the problem—a good portion of the kids coming to Hart and going on are mostly illiterate, and that comes down to elementary level failing by focusing on things that are not going to serve them in the long run. Sex and gender isn't important kids will figure it out on their own; leftists lie to themselves saying that they are saving lives, while creating illiterate adults who can’t function but know how to have sex has never served a society well.

Send Your Support To The Hart Board

So, needless to say, we respectfully disagree with the local outrage machine that the flag policy revisions are some dystopian threat—they're common-sense neutrality, and the hysteria is just more leftist theater. Stay tuned for more on the board meeting fallout and beyond by subscribing to Accountable SCV. Consider supporting us with a paid subscription to help keep exposing the nonsense inside our schools—and figure out why the usual suspects are obsessed with virtue-signaling and pointless symbols and won’t just come clean about prioritizing ideology over actual education, turning classrooms into indoctrination zones at the expense of literacy and life skills. What do you think, readers? Is this common-sense unity or the end times? Sound off in the comments, and subscribe for more unfiltered accountability in the valley.

Did anyone catch Tuesday's Santa Clarita City Council meeting? Talk about weird—Festivus arrived early this year, with “wannabe” Mayor Bill Miranda activating his cranky old man Frank Costanza mode, unleashing a torrent of grievances against anyone who'd ever crossed him. I haven't seen a washed-up has-been this mad since Joe Biden was denied an extra scoop of chunky monkey ice cream. He made it crystal clear that he is a bitter, petty man and his entire rant was personal, how dare the public give feedback and not just go along with every scheme city hall comes up with, in this case threatens to pave over one of the Valley's oldest multi-use buildings—a former Courthouse, Jail, Masonic lodge, and one time home of the Canyon Theatre Guild, which is how it got its "Rafters" nickname.

I called Mr. Miranda a “wannabe” mayor because those were his exact words toward Jason Gibbs—he sneered at Gibbs, calling him a "wannabe congressman" from the dais. Not exactly mayor-like behavior, especially for someone who's never been elected mayor. This didn’t stop Bill from writing a book about the BS title, though—who wouldn’t want to read the adventurous tales of the ins and outs of ribbon-cutting for Fro-Yo and yoga shops? The gig is 100% symbolic, mainly an unfair election perk that allows an incumbent to add 'Mayor' next to their name on the ballot. If you’re not familiar, Santa Clarita is a Charter City with a five-person council, where the mayor's role rotates—unless your name is TimBen, sorry, dude—and a city manager. It's generally more stable, avoiding big directional swings every four years from electing a new mayor... assuming you've got a competent manager, which is a big “if” for our city.

So why was Miranda angry?

The reason Bill was so upset with Gibbs is that his own political stunt got its legs cut out from under him. Bill planned to vote no on this new version of the deal, to make some petty point. Still, since both Weste and Gibbs recused themselves, it left only the required minimum three votes to make the deal go through, so Bill’s ego gave us the “stompy feet” temper tantrum yes vote. Miranda clearly feels played, and his accusations against Jeri and Carl Goldman were assinine to say the least. Why would the Goldmans have Gibbs recuse himself? Instead, those donations actually put their own deal at risk, as any of the three City Council members behind the dias had the power to vote no and kill the deal. Kudos to Marsha for that awkward moment of silence, refusing to second and forcing Miranda to second his own motion. Lol 🤡 This entire circus could be McLean's swan song farewell—going out with a mic-drop on these clowns.

The bigger question for Mr. Miranda is, where did he obtain all these numbers regarding the deal between the Goldmans and the Serrano Development Group, when the parties involved were not even allowed to disclose the details? Where did Miranda get this phantom 1.9 million evaluation of the building’s value? Why does the Signal act like this number is real? It just so happens to be 450k, the amount the bumbling idiots fumbled? There was no appraisal of the property, so where did he obtain this number, and why was he acting as if it were a fact? Even if it was an accurate valuation, what does that have to do with you, Mr. Miranda? How did Bill have undisclosed information he shouldn’t have had? Seems like the Serrano group has someone in their ranks with some loose lips, which, as we know, sinks ships. Now, far be it from me to criticize the quintessential good businessman, but shouldn’t Miranda know that something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it? It is simple supply and demand: you have a very interested buyer, which increases the demand, and a seller who wasn’t interested in selling, which increases the price, in addition to other factors like having to move a radio station, this isn’t like moving into a new condo, KHTS will have broadcast licenses they have to change which because of government probably costs a fortune and will take who knows how long. The city council shouldn’t be getting mad at Downtown Newhall businesses in the area that are responding to the city’s rushed actions.

KHTS and Serrano Development Group do not owe you an explanation or transparency. This is your deal; perhaps you should have done a better job vetting it so you wouldn’t end up bent over a barrel, begging some developer for money. Jason Tolleson disclosed this immediately when discussing the KHTS building with the Planning Commission on March 18, stating that the ideal situation for addressing noise and mitigation issues was to purchase the building—they just hadn't settled on a price yet. The fact that negotiations between the Goldmans and Serrano were happening was fully out in the open from the start. If the City Council had done its due diligence and let the planning commission thoroughly vet the project’s impact, this deal could have been hashed out properly—imagine a talented commission asking tough questions and providing real recommendations. Nope, not in this city; we want yes-people who close their eyes and run like lemmings off the cliff. Instead, you allowed Laurene Weste to expedite this project through Planning Commission and City Council approval, despite history showing that developments of this size typically require 2-4 Planning meetings and several council sessions. This entire thing seems like everyone involved is flying by the seat of their pants.

By the way, how did Miranda suddenly become the heavy in all of this? Weste negotiated this deal, and somehow she gets to take a nap in the back while Bill and Patsy yell at the room of concerned citizens? I have said it many times on this substack: What exactly does the City’s legal counsel do? Why didn’t they interrupt this and say we need to take a short recess and let Miranda know how badly he was screwing the pooch? Watching this rant was like watching a person with multiple personalities—one minute he's angry and sh*t-talking someone, the next he's whining about not getting $750,000 for the city. Then he starts lecturing the Serrano Development Group that they bought a historic building (the old Newhall Hardware), asking "Do you know the building you just bought? Was it a historic building? Did you know that?" as if that's some gotcha; if it's so important, put it on the Historical Registry, which is pretty much just a suggestion at this point anyway. If Miranda needs a refresher, he should read the Signal column from May 24th, where they made fun of the fact that the city council voted to lower the amount the city would receive from $750,000 to $300,000, allocating the remaining $450,000 to the noise mitigation efforts. Did anyone think to ask if negotiations for the building were still happening? Why is everything so half-ass on this project?

Bill wasn’t done; he had to take the opportunity to throw barbs at Denise Lite, who didn’t even speak at the meeting, saying “Denise Lite not only voted for this project, but she voted for it twice… she even seconded the motion,” Miranda said. “So I’m not sure how she goes from asking her questions about the project, knowing all the facts, and voting in favor of it twice, to being a pretend whistleblower.” He then took it a step further with a crass jab at her 2022 election loss: “She didn’t just get beat, she got her ass kicked.”

But let's set the record straight—Lite didn't get her ass kicked. As a political novice who trusted people she shouldn't have, she came up just 1978 votes short in a crowded field. And let's not forget, most city council members lose their first attempt—folks like Jason Gibbs, Cameron Smyth, Marsha McLean, and TimBen Boydston all bounced back after early defeats. Meanwhile, Miranda has been gifted his career: appointed in 2017 after Dante Acosta's assembly win, he has been handed name ID and ballot perks on a silver platter. Why did you get that handout, Bill? Maybe we can discuss it at your “roundtable,” oh, that’s right, only your friends are invited to participate in that. Brown Act be damned, Miranda gets to hold secret government meetings because reasons! So why are you so mad, Bill? Why was Lite removed from her position if she supported the project? Try telling the truth once.

Perhaps Lite wasn’t against the project in theory and had a problem with the process of how it was being done, like how the council ignored the logistical hell that you are about to put these downtown businesses through, getting rid of a lot of scarce parking spots and refusing to push for replacement using a Sacramento law AB 2097 which restricts cities from requiring parking in transit-rich zones, ignoring the fact that it does allow exemptions If a city can prove that the absence of parking would cause a substantial negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare, it may still impose parking requirements. That is a Metrolink station with limited operating hours; it is not a subway. Now you are forcing people to park in the Metrolink parking lot and walk across the train tracks to go to a nice restaurant? This is your vision? You could have easily had them replace the parking spaces they are taking away and add some more. Still, now you hide behind a law that has a clear carve-out. Apparently, having ladies walking across railroad tracks and then 40-50 yards in heels to get to the Junction isn't really a concern for the City Council.

Perry Smith attempted—and got denied—access to answers from City Attorney Joe Montes on his claim that the City Council's hands are tied by California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code §65589.5), just like with AB 2097. Utter nonsense. The HAA's "builder's remedy" only applies to projects with at least 20% low-income or 100% moderate-income units in non-compliant jurisdictions that fail to meet RHNA goals. Hartwell isn't affordable, so it doesn't qualify—it would have been denied or conditioned more easily if it had violated local standards, such as zoning or density requirements. This surprises no one; the city keeps hiding behind laws that don’t apply to make it look like they have no choice in the matter, all the while doing literal back flips to get some of that sweet developer cash to make up for their own gambling debts.

Why is the city council so desperate to get this project going as soon as possible? They seem to be fast-tracking every aspect of it—rushing through due diligence, bending to every developer whim, completely ignoring public feedback, and resorting to childish personal attacks from behind the dais. Wannabe Mayor Miranda kept saying something didn’t smell right. I think that funky smell might be Miranda past his sell-by date, or the whiff of desperation the council's trying to hide from the Serrano Development Group. One party's negotiating from a position of strength; the other's the city, scrambling, hiding behind state housing mandates, claiming that they need quick approvals or risk lawsuits. This is the kind of stuff that'd make Frank Ferry blush—almost as if the City bit off more than it could chew with that money-sucking acquisition of a certain park named after a certain Hollywood cowboy, that has a restoration bill up over $10M+, and now needs those sweet developer fees to plug the gaps. And City Manager Ken Striplin said the quiet part out loud when answering Patsy's question about what the money is for: "Yes, the original proposal was to provide the money to be used for historical preservation, specifically at Hart Park." This is how the public sector fundraises—shaking down developers under the guise of "mitigation" while the public foots the real bill.

So, needless to say, we respectfully disagree with the Signal editorial staff that “Mayor” Miranda has any valid points—he was an embarrassment and should resign. Stay tuned for more on the scramble to fix William S. Hart Park and beyond by subscribing to Accountable SCV. Consider supporting us with a paid subscription to help keep exposing the shenanigans inside City Hall—and figure out why Patsy Ayala is obsessed with catchphrases and won’t just come clean about the city's inability to afford the Hart Park acquisition, needing to sell off our historical gems to cover the county's mismanagement. Rumor vs Reality or Nah?

Santa Clarita, grab your popcorn—this council meeting was a 💩 sandwich with a small side of hope. First, the top bread: Jason Gibbs, our quintessential gentleman, delivering truth with surgical precision: “Historically, commissioners serve at the pleasure of the council. That’s true. But it takes extreme circumstances to remove one, and I don’t see anything here that rises to that level…there’s no basis for removal.” He is correct, commissions, whether Planning, Parks, or Arts, aren’t here to bow to any one council member’s ego. The primary purpose of a commission is to serve the entire council, and its purpose is to provide a second set of qualified eyes on areas that may offer helpful insights. Essentially, it is their job to ask questions and make recommendations to the entire city council, not just be a puppet to the council member who nominated them. The rest of the council agreed with Weste that Lite was qualified to serve on the planning commission back in September. Now they’re removing her because she had the integrity to ask some questions, rather than just going along with the corruption. Lite’s lawyer warning bells went off, and she did what a good lawyer is supposed to do: ask questions. So, kudos to Gibbs, who is relatively early in his political career, sidestepping an obvious blunder that these other three pendejos sprinted toward like fentanyl fiends looking for their next fix.

The funniest moment of the meeting has to go to Santa Clarita’s 2025 Man of the Year winner and part-time comedian Josh Rivas, who said in regards to Lite asking questions, “I ask you to have the balls to take her seriously,” then ended with “Sorry I had to say balls” 😂 I also must give props to Perry Smith; his writing on this topic has been some of his best work. I was somewhat surprised the next morning when the article about the meeting was a little short, but it was a late meeting, and he was probably as put off by all of this nonsense as the rest of us. When have the Signal, KHTS, Santa Clarita Man of the Year, and this substack all been on the same page about anything? Well done, Laurene, you have united the community against yourself. I suppose you might still have the Chambers’ support if that is even a thing that matters anymore.

Another more surprising kudos has to go to Marsha McClean, who said in a very brief statement, “When it comes to removal, there needs to be clear evidence of wrongdoing, and I haven’t seen that presented tonight.” She is absolutely correct; there is no evidence to suggest that Denise Lite did anything other than her job. Marsha saw this for what it was and should be commended for doing the right thing by the people of this city, and its municipal code. You can read the planning commission’s codes under chapter 2.26, maybe Tony Maldonado, who went on a laughably arrogant rant about ”THE LAW” as it is written, basically saying that Council is not bound to any ethics or moral standards, and that Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council so they can pull the plug on anyone commissioner for any reason. Read the statute, Tony. You show me where commissioners owe undying loyalty to the one who appointed them, and they must get all questions and comments approved beforehand in Chapter 2.26? He further embarrassed himself by complaining that Mayor Miranda gave Denise Lite a few extra minutes at the previous meeting. Why wouldn’t they want to hear more from the commissioner in question? That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and weren’t you basically arguing that the counsel can do whatever they want? Let’s work on that consistency.

Maldonado started his comments by declaring the entire thing a circus. If that is the case, the ring master of this three-ring circus is none other than Scott Wilk’s girl, Patsy Ayala, firing off questions to the city’s legal counsel to justify Weste’s developer deal, as if something being lawful automatically makes it ethical and moral. No one is disputing that council members should be involved in city business—the problem is the brass at City Hall sitting on their thumbs. At the same time, Weste makes up her own rules to tear down 150-year-old buildings while disrupting KHTS' operations and funneling money that should go into city coffers to her pet nonprofit, setting a precedent that with enough cash, the city council will do gymnastics to sell off our city's history for spare parts.

The people of this city elected Patsy in the hope that she would prioritize their best interests. Instead, she spent the end of the meeting yelling at the very constituents she was chosen to serve. She claimed that the deal was transparent simply because it was conducted right in front of us. That’s like saying the man running a three-card monte scam is trustworthy because he does his dirty business right under your nose. The most significant indication that everything Patsy was doing was nothing but poorly executed political theatre is that Laurene, in her comments, said, “I wish Denise all the best,” ahhh, so you already knew that outcome, the fix was in days before this meeting. Just some good old-fashioned corruption, par for the course for a crook like Weste.

Patsy went on to push some nonsense about the state and the US Constitution. Mrs. Ayala, you couldn't distinguish the Constitution of this country from a Vons ad. What does any of that have to do with this? Laurene Weste does not have a constitutional right to give away our money or to have the council vote her way. If anyone's constitutional rights were being violated, it was Denise Lite, who was denied her Fifth Amendment right to fair due process for essentially doing her job, which City Council members basically admitted to, while claiming to have looked at the evidence. What evidence? There was none; let's call this whole thing what it was: political revenge because Patsy went to the Republican 40th Central Committee, which Lite chaired, and got denied the endorsement, mostly because she declared herself the "DEI" candidate and basically told them they needed her more than she needed them. Why would anyone declare themselves the "DEI" candidate when calling someone a “DEI hire” is essentially saying that person is incompetent and unqualified, which is what you appear to be with your silly little rant? As the old adage goes, it is better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and prove it.

As for Bill Miranda it was a “mask off” type moment for him, he was pretty much a jerk all night, which is not really a surprise if you have been paying attention, he got into a shouting match from behind the dias with Steve Petzold, after Petz rightly pointed out that the Human Relations Roundtable was completely illegal, Petz was Petz which means he was a little over the top with his claims. Still, he wasn’t wrong that it was one big brown act violation, which is why the city quietly disbanded it. This resignation letter from the Roundtable is pretty wild. Mr. Petzold did not deserve to be told “sit down and shut up,” not a great look for a guy that wrote a book titled A New Kind Of Mayor: Breaking The Mold, what mold is he breaking, the one where elected officials are kind to their constituents and don’t shout down from the dias? What is his next book gonna be? “How to Disappoint Friends & Alienate Santa Clarita” Be Better.

I would have liked to see Denise Lite file an appeal and use it as an opportunity to read her full statement, which was published by KHTS. You can read it here. She could have used that opportunity to officially launch her campaign. These three clowns essentially gave Lite a platform and a reason for people to support her. Unfortunately, that opportunity may have slipped away because the appeal must be filed within 10 days, although 'days' typically refers to the days City Hall is open for business. Either way, Patsy is gonna have a bumpy ride once Denise Lite gets behind that Dias. Good luck with that.

Stay tuned for these revelations and more by subscribing to Accountable SCV. Consider supporting us through a paid subscription to help us continue exposing the political theater happening in the city council chamber.

Chelsea believed and acted as if she were the next “it girl” in SCV politics. Unfortunately, Mrs. “it girl” Orzechowski failed to recognize that local Democrats lost a lot of momentum after the Katie Hill controversy; they weren't running a particularly brilliant or disruptive campaign. Local Dems had egg on their face, and they lost alot of faith with moderates. So it was more a case of Christy Smith losing than Garcia winning. Christy actually held political office up here; she had a name, and no one really knew who Mike Garcia was, other than he was once a fighter pilot. Lite's campaign similarly lacked substance; the website didn’t have an agenda or offer compelling reasons for voters to choose her beyond the simple critique that her opponent, Marsha, was "old." Furthermore, both Lite and Mike Garcia mirrored Orzechowski’s attitude, which was that voters needed them more than they needed the voters. This perspective was somewhat off-putting to many people.

Now that Orzechowski has some pretty significant losses on her resume with being the first campaign manager to lose a City Council race despite a $100,000 war chest, and overseeing a loss of our congressional seat to a Democrat for only the second time in history, perhaps she will adopt a more humble approach moving forward. According to Lite’s campaign website, she opened a 2026 FPPC campaign account for running in District 2, and we will see if she can build on her name ID and raise funds like she did in 2022. The advantage of being a lawyer is that she has a lot of lawyer friends in her phone who wouldn’t miss a $1,000 maximum donation. I don’t see anything stopping Lite from taking down District 2, Miranda is done, and Dems will likely put up some cannon fodder candidate like “any seat” Andy Taban. Is it even an election if Andrew Taban isn’t pretending to care about something other than himself? Why wouldn’t we want a college dropout on the COC board? Good call, Wendy.👌🏻 Did you spend half a million to lose control of the board? Yes, yes, you did. Guess we'll have to save that for another Substack; back to Lite v. Weste.

Laurene Weste, on the other hand, is seen as the emblem of corruption in Santa Clarita. The words most often used to describe her among close associates are "vindictive," “arrogant,” and “nasty.” Weste believes she controls the city and is not shy about making sure everyone knows that she has Ken Striplin’s balls in her purse. The problem is, no one is brave enough to challenge her until Denise came along. Weste lives in a fantasy world if she thinks any of this will turn out well for her. The issue is that Weste’s corruption has gone unchecked for so long that she now believes she is untouchable. Laurene has been orchestrating shady deals like this for the last two decades. These developers ultimately donate to or cover the costs of Weste’s political fundraisers, as well as fund whatever pet project or NGO she is currently working on. It is time for us, the people, to show her that she is not untouchable and that we no longer need her leadership. She might be better off spending time with her ravens. Yes, she has ravens as pets because she is like a Disney villain—only more soulless.

Currently, Laurene is scheming to maintain her power because, unlike Marsha, she has the money and resources to establish a presence in another part of town. We went to the districts, and this created some wrinkles for her. She lived in Patsy’s district, so she “moved” to her other house in Saugus. However, it now appears that she will have stiff competition in that district, so she is looking to pivot to Canyon Country, likely the Sand Canyon area. The new districting created significant problems for the current board members, who can no longer rely solely on $50,000 in political donations and name recognition. Of the five districts, only one has been claimed, and that would be Patsy Ayala in District 1. Miranda is retiring, and we wish him well. Marsha, who lives in Patsy’s district, would have to move to run, so she is likely out unless she rents a room or something. District 2 (Valencia area) is essentially Denise’s for the taking, with Laurene Weste gifting her the narrative of running on stopping City Hall corruption. That leaves Districts 3, 4, and 5 up for grabs. We can expect to see a significantly different city council soon.

So, what will happen at the next meeting? My first prediction is that it will be a hot, uncomfortable room for Weste. Weste is so used to winning that she doesn’t know what to do when challenged. Remember, Laurene, you asked for this, so brace yourself because this is going to be a bumpy ride for you. All you are doing is giving Denise Lite her Trump mugshot moment; it epitomizes stupidity and shows that the city council is averse to accountability. All this circus is going to do is turn Lite into a Timben Boyston-type candidate who can raise money. Great job, Laurene, you got the political dogfight you wanted, making yourself radioactive all the while making Lite look like a million bucks. You didn’t think this one through at all. There are many people in and out of City Hall who are enjoying watching you go down in flames. Burn baby Burn 🔥

Stay tuned for these revelations and more by subscribing to Accountable SCV. Consider supporting us through a paid subscription to help us continue holding bad actors like Laurene Weste accountable.

Anyone paying attention has likely heard the terms “Woke,” Critical Race Theory (CRT), Anti-Racism, Intersectionality, and, more recently, DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. If you prefer to cut to the chase, these buzzwords all boil down to the same thing—an even dirtier term: Cultural Marxism. Bradford’s defense of DEI in her column is a textbook example of this ideology in action, cloaked in the language of inclusion but rooted in division. When most people hear “Marxism,” they think of the Bolsheviks, the Cuban Revolution, or the Cold War era, conjuring images of violent coups and brutal dictatorships—and they’d be mostly correct; those are often the results when Marxist doctrine takes hold in an unstable society. But Marxism typically moves slowly, rotting a government or organization from the inside out through subversion. A former KGB agent named Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, who defected to Canada in 1970, revealed in a 1984 interview with G. Edward Griffin that the Soviets had a long-term plan to undermine the U.S.—not on the battlefield, but in the psyche of the American public. Bezmenov described a chilling strategy of psychological warfare, focusing on “demoralization” as the first stage of a decades-long process to destabilize and eventually normalize a Marxist takeover, using “ideological subversion” through active measures and psychological warfare—tactics that echo in the divisive rhetoric of leftists like Valerie Bradford and coup fan girl Christy Smith today.

While Karl Marx himself saw a real problem in his time—the Industrial Revolution’s abuses of the working class, where serfdom merely swapped one set of overlords for another—his ideas have since morphed into a more insidious form that figures like Bradford wield to sow discord under the guise of progress. This evolution owes much to Critical Theory. This philosophical framework emerged in the early 20th century with the Frankfurt School, a group of German intellectuals including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. After Hitler’s rise, the Frankfurt School fled to the U.S., affiliating with Columbia University and embedding themselves into academia, where they remained through the 1930s and WWII, producing works that would shape leftist thought for decades. Rooted in Marxist principles, Critical Theory shifts the focus from economic revolution to critiquing society, culture, and power structures, spawning offshoots like CRT and Intersectionality that divide society by assigning “oppression points” based on identity markers. Leftists like Bradford often attempt to conflate or downplay the Marxist roots of CRT, arguing that it is “just a law school class” or "just teaching all of history."—both of which are patently false. In reality, Critical Theory operates more like a religious philosophy, seeping into every aspect of an organization it infects, a tactic Bradford honed over decades working in Human Resources, ground zero for implementing DEI and Intersectionality initiatives. As she reveals in her column: “The nationwide effort to undermine DEI reveals the current administration’s blatant disregard for anyone who doesn’t fit neatly within the intersections of being white, male, Christian, heterosexual, and wealthy.” Notice her use of the term “intersections”—in her worldview, a white, male, Christian, heterosexual person is viewed as an oppressor born with original sin and deserving nothing, perhaps not even life itself; a mindset that cultivates hateful division and resentment. She knows exactly what she is doing.

Get more from Accountable SCV in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Antonio Gramsci, often hailed as the father of Cultural Marxism, laid the groundwork for this ideology as an Italian communist imprisoned by Mussolini from 1926 until he died in 1937. During his incarceration, Gramsci penned his influential Prison Notebooks, arguing that capitalism’s dominance isn’t solely upheld by economic wealth or political power but by a more insidious force: ideas. He posited that the ruling class maintains control not just through money or governance but by embedding their worldview into society’s cultural fabric, convincing the masses that their way of thinking—about everything from gender roles to economic systems—is legitimate and considered “common sense”. To dismantle this hegemony, Gramsci urged the working class to wage a cultural war, crafting and spreading new ideas to challenge the old ones, such as redefining fundamental concepts like say “what is a woman?” His theories found their way to America through Joseph Buttigieg, a scholar who translated Gramsci’s works into English and promoted them widely—incidentally, the father of Pete Buttigieg, the former presidential candidate and U.S. Secretary of Transportation under the Biden administration, who famously pushed the narrative that even infrastructure, like roads are racist because what isn’t racist at this point?

This rebrand of Cultural Marxism, so it is something more palatable, is a classic leftist tactic, as seen in 2022 when Elon Musk, after buying Twitter, discovered a closet full of abandoned T-shirts emblazoned with their former tagline #StayWoke. Terms like “Woke” and “AntiRacism” were deliberate word games designed to exploit people’s ignorance and good intentions. If leftists called it Cultural Marxism outright, most decent people would recoil at the memory of Marxist atrocities, but label it “Woke,” and it passes as a progressive movement to help the marginalized. The term became too toxic after massive financial losses in entertainment—coupled with successful corporate boycotts against brands like Bud Light, Target, and Disney for their “Woke” pandering—and revelations that financial firms like BlackRock threatened companies to shift focus to their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and DEI priorities or face the consequences. BlackRock has since reversed course, at least on the surface, as it likely scrambles to rebrand yet again. Leftist lightning rods like AOC quickly abandoned the burnt term “Woke,” claiming in 2023 that only old farts like “former Clinton consultants like James Carville and Fox News pundits” use the term—a blatant lie meant to obscure their history with it, part of their endless “three-card monte” word games to confuse while pushing the same divisive agenda. To them, this isn’t just a political theory—it’s a religious doctrine for the leftist globalist cabal, with their eyes fixed on a so-called global utopia, a goal they’ll stop at nothing to achieve.

This brings us to Mao Zedong, who referred to his revolution as “Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics.” His “Thought Reform” indoctrinated millions, and the Cultural Revolution acted as his wrecking ball—destroying what Mao called the “Four Olds” (old ideas, culture, customs, habits) to impose a socialist utopia. He mobilized the masses, obliterated tradition, and categorized people like livestock. No racial diversity to exploit? No problem. Villagers wore colored strips: the “Red Class”—loyal Maoists, the revolutionary elite—boasted red, while the “Black Class”—landlords, pre-Communist relics, or anyone he didn’t favor—were labeled as enemies. You might say, “Cool history lesson, but that’s China—can’t happen here.” Wrong. Marxism adapts like a virus, latching onto a culture and mutating. This is why Elon Musk referred to it as the Woke Mind Virus. In China, it manifests as feudal totalitarianism; in America, it’s Freud and liberalism that have morphed into identity ideology, transgender nonsense, and woke-ism—this is Marxism with American characteristics. It’s evident in diversity, equity, and inclusion training at work. The social-emotional learning in schools and the restorative justice concept in our legal system. This is already happening here, which is why Trump won so decisively and why his administration is doing everything possible to eliminate the Marxist decay to help bring back the country from the brink of collapse.

Xi Van Fleet’s Mao’s America: A Survivor’s Warning exposes this sinister thread, and it’s a wake-up call. A Cultural Revolution survivor who went viral after roasting a Virginia school board in 2021, Xi, who fled China to live in the US, couldn’t believe her eyes watching the exact same policies she fled decades before being pushed by leftists like Bradford, whose NAACP held a so-called “Anti-Racism Coalition” last year, the concept of Anti-racism was coined by Ibram X. Kendi who describes this concept as “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” And then there is Black Lives Matter (BLM), whose leaders boasted about being trained Marxists and whose website called for the dismantling of the nuclear family. The anti-racism and DEI that Bradford champions are another of cultural Marxism’s Trojan horses. These policies don’t unite; they carve society into race-and-identity shrapnel. Don’t believe me? Bradford was one of the people at the Soros-backed Indivisible’s “Tesla Takedown” protest last month; here are the organizers literally saying they are copying Mao’s Hundred Flowers Campaign, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 300,000 to 550,000 people—primarily intellectuals, professionals, and critics of the CCP—who were labeled as "rightists."

These people are mimicking Mao Zedong, a monster whose “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” killed 40 to 80 million through starvation, persecution, prison camps, and executions. Bradford’s hooked on Mao’s “Little Red Book," which has been reimagined as antiracism and DEI. In the leftist realm of 2025, you don’t think; thinking could lead to dissenting opinions, which is a sin for the modern left. Nope, you must turn off your brain and accept the dogma—just “Read The F—ing Manual (RTFM).” It’s like the Japanese proverb: “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” Christy Smith echoed this sentiment by stating, “Right now, it’s crucial that everyone receives a daily ‘talking points memo’ and sings loudly and often from the same hymn book.” Thus, the talking points memo informed the leftist zombies that they should now hate Elon Musk; they must sing from the same hymn book lying about Musk, cutting social security, and Medicaid. Musk: once a darling of the left, now somehow a super-secret Nazi, a cartoon villain in their fevered narrative. Why? He’s a free thinker who transformed Tesla into a powerhouse, defying their control-freak gospel. Bradford’s crew demands obedience—DEI is sacred; critics like Elon are labeled heretics. It’s even darker: they support division while turning a blind eye to Tesla’s domestic terrorists—arson, sabotage, protests—because “inclusion” means destroying what won’t kneel. Xi witnessed firsthand Mao gutting Chinese culture, dividing its people, and murdering her neighbors. She won’t remain silent as leftists like Bradford perpetuate their Antiracist/DEI scam, repackaged as virtue. That’s Indivisible’s Tesla agenda: Maoist chaos disguised in American guise. Framing Musk isn’t merely a side hustle—it’s the mission. They seek your applause while striking the match, attempting to burn your country down.

Bradford’s actions in Santa Clarita follow a pattern of division and control, exploiting local incidents to advance her agenda while masquerading as a social justice advocate. In the next column, we’ll explore her hypocrisy, from contradictions in her activism to her selective outrage in local controversies, alongside concerns about the transparency of her NAACP branch. Stay tuned for these revelations and more by subscribing to Accountable SCV. Consider supporting us through a paid subscription to help us continue holding candidates like Bradford accountable.

Residents across Santa Clarita are sounding the alarm. At a city council meeting this month, a speaker with Parkinson’s disease said they feel “barraged daily” by e-bikes ridden by kids as young as 10 or 12 on the paseos. “I’ve jumped out of the way a few times,” they noted, underscoring the silent danger to pedestrians. Another resident demanded clear signage banning motorized vehicles from paseos, saying many avoid them now because “it’s just not safe”. Then there’s Tim Whyte’s column, “Mom, Dad, Is This Your E-Bike Kid?” tackling the parenting failures at the core of this mess. He describes his wife walking their dog when a 13- or 14-year-old on an e-bike stared her down and said, “What the F— did you say to me?” misreading her silence as a challenge. No sugarcoating it: that kid was a “dick.” Worse, Whyte depicts a “mob” of 50-100 kids riding through streets and sidewalks, popping wheelies in traffic, blocking intersections, and nearly causing crashes. Tragically, a 14-year-old lost their life that night after being struck by two vehicles on Railroad Avenue. Now, a 15-year-old minor on an e-bike has been transported to a hospital following a traffic collision in Newhall and was later arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. I think at this point we can all agree with Whyte: parents must step up because the body count will only rise if something isn’t done quickly.

Last Friday, I witnessed it myself leaving the mall: an e-bike rider cut across both lanes of traffic at the entrance near Wokcano, turned right splitting the lanes against traffic, and then veered left across the final lane onto the sidewalk as cars came barreling in. Every driver had to react, essentially making it their job to avoid running him over. It happened so quickly that it was over before I could get my camera out. It mirrored another incident across town: two minors on e-bikes approached an intersection; one switched from the road to the crosswalk and rode across, proclaiming to his friend, “They have to stop for us!” He nearly got flattened by a truck, then turned and screamed at it—completely wrong, yet ignorant and defiant. I thought I might witness a death that day. These moments highlight a bigger issue: parents give kids vehicles without those kids knowing road laws, letting them believe they’re pedestrians because they view these electric motorcycles as toys instead of what they are—dangerous motorized vehicles regulated by the DMV.

Let’s be crystal clear: if a parent buys their kid a bike without pedals, it’s not an e-bike—not a Class 1, 2, or 3, which all have pedals and legal speed limits. It’s an electric dirt bike—think Surron or Talaria, with jump suspension, built for stunts, not paseos. I’ve seen these riders pulling wheelies for 30-40 yards past me and other pedestrians, silent as ghosts. Unlike gas bikes that growl a warning, these electric beasts offer no heads-up, leaving moms, seniors, and everyone else at the mercy of whoever’s on the throttle. That’s not a small lapse; it’s a massive safety fail, and it’s on parents handing these to minors without oversight.

The city isn’t blind to the issue but must do more to tackle this growing mess. City Manager Ken Striplling admitted the problem had worsened over the past few years, with the Sheriff’s Department boosting enforcement and a social media campaign clarifying e-bike rules. Deputy Jigello from the Sheriff Station’s motorcycle team stressed in an Instagram Reel that e-bikes follow bicycle rules—helmets for all, supervision for kids, 16 minimum for Class 3. “Be courteous,” he said, urging riders to signal and keep speeds safe. Striplin conceded that resources are thin and that unsupervised kids riding “with impunity” remains challenging. The City Manager added, “I want to make more efforts to educate the public—not just on e-bike classes, but to hammer home that electric dirt bikes are illegal in the city.”

The state’s response? A new law bans speed-capacity devices on e-bikes. The California Highway Patrol flagged updated 2025 regulations to curb misuse. But here’s the catch: these rules will not solve the problem. Battery tech is advancing fast, slashing costs, and hiking power. A YouTube search for “speed up e-bike” pulls up tutorials like unlocking/jailbreaking an e-bike’s “real top speed”, making regulation essentially a joke. Laws alone won’t fix this; the genie is out of the bottle, and as e-bikes get faster and cheaper, the problem will grow.

Santa Clarita must act decisively before the situation escalates further. The city should start by addressing the issue of electric motorcycles without pedal assist, which blurs the line between bicycles and dirt bikes. These vehicles are not the “class one, two, and three” e-bikes permitted on paseos; they are a different category altogether, often too fast and frequently violating regulations.

To tackle this issue, the city could launch a comprehensive education campaign featuring bus stop banners and signage along the paseos. Additionally, implementing a local ordinance that includes fines or penalties for riders—and their parents—would help enforce rules banning these vehicles from bike paths and paseos. Residents have made it clear that they want stricter enforcement and better signage. While education efforts are valuable, they are insufficient, as young people ride recklessly and unsupervised through town. I have heard rumors that the Sheriff’s station conducted a sting operation and impounded illegal e-bikes, and this sounds like a great start. City & Sheriff might also work with local bike vendors that sell or allow people to order these bikes. We need much more of this to put some teeth behind our laws.

The William S. Hart District should also offer educational programs for students and parents. Some parents may not realize that the e-bike they purchased for their minors is illegal. I have heard a few examples of parents learning they bought an illegal bike and returned it to the manufacturer. Hart should also enforce regulations regarding whether students can bring illegal e-bikes onto campus.

Last summer, the city’s “Back to School Safety” blog urged caution around e-bikes as schools reopened. That warning should’ve stuck, but how many read city blogs—especially the “cool parent” buying their kid a silent murder machine? If we don’t hit this head-on with real consequences, not just polite nudges, we’re begging for more crashes, injuries, and frustration. The question isn’t if it’ll worsen; it’s how bad we’ll let it get before acting.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

The Hap-A-Lan Hall story starts in 1876, when Henry Mayo Newhall built a barn at Spruce (now Main) and Market Streets for his Newhall Land and Farming Co. By 1920, locals turned it into the Hap-A-Lan Dance Hall—named for owner Lloyd Houghton’s wife, Opal—dishing bootleg liquor during Prohibition. So, it was basically a speakeasy that’s now hosting Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—never change, Santa Clarita. In 1928, it became a morgue for 40 St. Francis Dam disaster victims; its lumber was salvaged for a new building nearby. John Boston calls it “priceless,” tied to “cowboy history, saloons, dames, and early aviation”—lumber reused from a site where Tom Mix filmed, Amelia Earhart dropped by, and oilmen rubbed elbows with bootleggers. That legacy earned it a 2012 historic nod. Yet Weste’s Historical Society claims the 1968 remodel erased it all—a bald-faced lie when Boston says it’s “still standing, still telling stories” in 2025.

John Boston's Column

What’s with all the shadow games? Everyone knows Weste is the unnamed City Council member who is waist-deep in City Hall’s “flurry of deal-making,” negotiating an impact fee for this Newhall project. How is City Manager Ken Striplin “not a party to any negotiations” when we’re shelling out nearly half a million a year for him to twiddle his thumbs? Weste knows what she’s doing is as corrupt and self-serving as it gets, so Perry Smith of The Signal keeps pressing her, and she keeps hanging up on him. Right now, the city, council, and SCV Historical Society all know this about Weste and seem somewhere between complacent and complicit; either way, they’ve been caught with their pants down. Weste shamelessly claims no conflict of interest here—she’s gotten away with this so often that I wonder what she’s got on these people or if they’ve just given up trying to reason with her. The SCV Historical Society’s mission is to “preserve and protect” our heritage, and its bylaws pledge “public and charitable purposes,” not “private gain”. So why’s Weste, with sway over its directors (Section 6.2), pushing a developer’s wishlist that leaves the community with zilch?

Weste’s notoriously a control freak with a shady past. An unnamed official reveals, “Sure, negotiations happen, but she’s relentless about getting her way.” She pressures until she wins, wielding any leverage she’s got. Everyone at the SCV Historical Society knows the 1968 remodel claim’s pure fiction—did the other chairs even vote on this? Weste’s is always inconsistent about downtown Newhall. In 2021, she praised its “past and future”—now she’s demolishing a key piece to grease the wheels for developers’ luxury condos. Tolleson profits, businesses shutter, and our history is in the dustbin.

What’s In It for Santa Clarita?

Not much—Santa Clarita gets nothing from this deal. At least with Newhall Crossing, we scored a Laemmle Theatre, Maginn’s Irish Pub, the cool Japanese bakery “The Loaf,” and other cool spots—and didn’t lose anything people’d miss; objections were mainly about the parking structure and traffic flow. This deal swaps a historical gem for million-dollar condos nobody asked for. The city loses a building tied to cowboys, Prohibition, and disaster—replaced by a soulless tower boosting Tolleson and, surprise, Weste’s nearby property values. Small businesses get flattened, and we’re stuck with more traffic and tax bills. Weste calls it “no cost to the city” (Timestamp 1:39:51)—a slick lie when you’re torching a Wild West relic for zero gain. Worse, it spits on Santa Clarita’s ordinance 17.64.050, demanding a certificate proving alterations don’t harm cultural value. Where’s Weste’s proof? The winners? Weste and the developer. Santa Clarita’s heritage takes a hit, and we’re left with another of Weste’s ticky-tacky beige boxes instead of a legacy.

What’s In It for Weste?

Everything. Before City Council, Weste was a planning commission appointee, snapping up land she knew the city’s master plan would juice—like the Dockweiler Drive extension where she owns property. Rumors are swirling that the city might dig up some buried problems on that land, though. This Newhall site’s no different—her nearby holdings will soar with Tolleson’s condos. History repeats: she’ll squeeze quid pro quo from the developer—big NGO donations for which she will take credit. On March 11, she spoke like it’s locked in: “It’s very exciting what’s coming to downtown Newhall” (Timestamp 1:40:27), hyping a “specific plan” with no nod to Hap-A-Lan—just pure, nuclear-grade Nancy Pelosi-style gaslighting, as if she’s saying, “Yes, I’m insider trading this deal, what are you gonna do about it?”

Politically, this deal’s a goldmine for Weste’s 2026 reelection bid. As Mayor Pro Tem, she’s next in line to be Mayor, letting her list “Mayor” as her ballot designation—a shiny badge next to her name that’ll give her a massive edge in the new district voting system. She hasn’t moved into the district where she’ll likely run—probably Sand Canyon, where developers like Tolleson could be eyeing projects like the Sand Canyon Trail Bridges—but the downtown Newhall deal won’t impact her new area much, making this a perfect parting shot at Newhall, the neighborhood she’s lived in for most of her council career, as she chases votes in a cushier district. The Good Ole Boy club will rally to carry her across the finish line—who else can they run now with districts in play? Tolleson and other developers cashing in on this project will pour max donations into Weste and her allies who greenlit it. They’ll host events and fund Independent Expenditures—fancy jargon for campaigns run without her direct coordination—spending tens of thousands on mailers flooding Sand Canyon or ads to prop her up and smear anyone who dares challenge her. She’ll strut around like a big-swinging dick, bragging about all the changes she did.

What Should Be Done?

Respect the damn history. If this building must move, relocate it among the older buildings near the Walk of Western Stars and Cowboy Festival—turn it into a museum for Hollywood’s Western and cowboy culture. The condo project? Force it to give back—add a co-op workspace with meeting rooms, printers, mail, and temporary desks for small businesses. Santa Clarita’s history deserves more than Weste’s wrecking ball, and the community deserves a win, not her crumbs. What’s a registry worth if bureaucrats can torch it whenever they like? Why have a list if someone can rewrite the rules? Why would a 1968 remodel kill its value? This building’s likely the longest multiuse facility in Santa Clarita history—the remodel even predates College of the Canyons (1969), CalArts (1970), and Magic Mountain (1971). This remodel took place in a very different Santa Clarita Valley.

Old Town’s heritage is the pulse of Santa Clarita—where we light the Christmas tree, parade for Independence Day, enjoy Senses on Main, and invite the world to experience the annual cowboy festival. It embodies the spirit of our community, not a bargaining chip for Weste to move the goalposts and sell to the highest bidder. Yet her deal puts it on the auction block, fattening her wallet, political coffers, and favorite NGOs while we’re left with scraps and overpriced condos for smug hipsters. This isn’t just a building; it’s our story—fight for it, or watch everything else slip away before our eyes. There’s no unringing this bell.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

Her first outburst has her clutching pearls over “unelected Elon Musk and his team (young men with no U.S. Security Clearance)” touching “our nation’s critical payment system.” She cites a mystery “national security advisor,” calling it “the largest cybersecurity breach in US history,” and urges her followers to flood Congress’s phone lines. “None of us voted” for this, she cries—unlike Fauci, Ferrer, or other unelected bureaucrats who locked us down without a ballot being cast. An unnamed national security advisor? That is just lazy; at least when they were trying to spin the misinformation yarns about the Hunter Laptop, they at least got 51 corrupt national security advisors to sign their names to it. This reeks of “suckers and losers” election meddling—same playbook, same desperation.

Christy Smith Coup Rant

Her follow-up is a three-point plan to fight Trump’s “active coup attempt” with his DOGE team. She pushes a “legal strategy team” to shadow Trump, funded by $25 million in taxpayer cash from Newsom, to fight a president who just won the electoral college and popular vote, which translates into fighting the will of the American voter. These are the folks calling every disagreement a “threat to democracy.” She admits “Democrats have always been bad at unified messaging” but insists on a daily “talking points memo” to “sing loudly and often from the same hymn book.” Authenticity? Not here—spam us with anti-Trump screeds like those 23 senators parroting the same script for TikTok attention. Finally, in all caps: “THE SENATE MUST STOP VOTING TO APPROVE HIS NOMINEES.” Her evidence? “Trump and his cronies are daily taking actions that subvert the rule of law as defined by the Constitution and 2 centuries of precedent”—like rescinding LBJ’s 1965 Executive Order establishing USAID, a move he has every right to make under the Constitution. If it’s a coup, why’s Trump bothering with appointments? In her mind, this somehow voids centuries of law What precedent from the last 2 centuries has a president not getting his cabinet approved?

Christy has always painted herself as a reasonable, caring mom while simultaneously branding her opponents “MAGA extremists.” While telling her “fighters,” whom she urges supporters to cheer on, people building websites like DOGE Quest—a site mapping Tesla owners, dealerships, and chargers with a Molotov cocktail cursor, linking to a website called “NoTrace.how” for “anarchists and rebels” to evade surveillance and arrest. These are the types of psychos that Christy wants her followers to support. She’s been close with extremists for years: Julie Olsen was exposed in 2017 for sending vulgar, violent messages even wishing death on people she hates and using disturbing racist sock puppets like “Mike Branson”—a fake Black veteran written in purposely poor grammar—to manufacture allegations of racism against congressional candidate Bryan Caforio, and then there is Wade Alexander, arrested that same year for fighting cops and burning flags at a May Day protest in Los Angeles, who styles himself like a Temu Che Guevara (Seriously?!?). Christy was aware of Olsen’s actions while they were happening; in fact, she was on the offending threads and only removed Olsen from the local Dem club after a young Dem threatened to go public—damage control, not accountability. She is later spotted associating with Alexander, whose antics clash with her carefully sculpted public image of civility. As noted a while back, this group preaches “civility” when they hold power, but when they lose—thanks to a little thing called democracy—they’re ready to burn it all down, as seen in 2020’s unrest, hoping to rule over the ashes. Christy’s allies aren’t just unhinged—they’re a calculated pattern of chaos when power slips away.

Her embrace of chaos isn’t new—it’s a pattern stretching back through her elected official career. Christy entered politics in 2009, winning a Newhall School District board seat and serving two unremarkable, controversy-free terms. She positioned herself as a community-focused advocate and looked like someone who cared about the well-being of her community. She eventually decided to run for the California State Assembly against Dante Acosta and lost in a race that exposed her willingness to play dirty. She had The Signal’s endorsement locked—until she smeared Acosta with accusations of “seedy business dealings,” then went on to brag to the paper she smeared him because she knew he couldn’t respond; the Signal, in turn, wrote an op-ed titled “Our View: What a shame!,” then a few weeks after that dropped a last-minute very sketchy sexual harassment claim, playing innocent while everyone saw through it, the scheme failed, and Acosta won. Two years later, in 2018, Christy secured that same Assembly seat with help from ballot harvesting, alongside Katie Hill’s congressional win, joining Sacramento’s Democratic supermajority. Once in office, she was the perfect leftist rubber stamp, voting every chance she had to make California harder to live in for everyday people: she backed AB5 (May 29, 2019), gutting over a million gig jobs—truckers, freelancers, actors—to appease her union allies, and by June 11, 2020, with the pandemic crushing livelihoods, she doubled down with another “Yes” on AB5’s tweaks, not repeal, leaving workers high and dry while unions celebrated. Her 2020 votes continued the trend: AB 1867 mandated extra sick leave for big employers mid-COVID, crushing businesses already on the brink of collapse; AB 3075 hiked wage liability, burying small businesses further in legal risk; AB 3088’s tenant relief froze evictions but left landlords with no lifeline; and she voted “No” on SB 1120, blocking duplexes to ease housing costs, prioritizing her suburban donors over renters while we have a housing shortage. She skipped AB 685, a workplace COVID reporting measure—because she was too busy posturing

Anarcho Mom's Voting Records

California has become unlivable for many people, and Christy was part of the problem. The state ranks among the priciest in the U.S.—second only to Hawaii in 2024—with average home values at $773,300, per Zillow. High taxes, like the nation’s steepest 12.3% income tax rate, drive residents to no-tax states like Texas and Nevada. Job growth lags the national average, hit by strict regulations and a high cost of living, pushing tech and entertainment industries to struggle. Businesses are fleeing—441 have left since 2018, including Oracle, for tax-friendly states, citing high rents, taxes, and red tape. Christy’s votes fueled this decline: AB5 killed jobs, SB 1120 choked the housing supply, and her disregard for the community—cozying up to extremists like Olsen and Alexander while playing the “caring mom”—eroded trust and chasing away taxpayers while simultaneously importing non-tax paying immigrants essentially chase away state income while attracting more bills. People are leaving because they can’t afford to stay; the state is now running huge deficits, and Christy helped make it that way.

Now she’s Emerge California’s Executive Director, “training” women to run for office—not as community champions, but in power grabs and manipulation; corruption doesn’t come naturally. Who better to teach it than Christy, who pulled $3.1 million from ActBlue in 2020 and $867,529 in 2022, per OpenSecrets. She rode a Democratic fundraising machine now under scrutiny for alleged fraud, money laundering, and “smurfing” (splitting big donations into smaller, hidden chunks)—all while decrying Musk’s “coup.”

Of course, Christy’s fan club has all their Ukraine and Palestinian flag emojis on full display and eating up Anarcho Mom’s extreme rhetoric. Logan Smith warns the “far right” has been lawyering up, Harry Reed pleads for “directions from you” to stop this “coup,” and MarLa Kapit goes full anarchist and writes: “Time for a coup. Take back our country.” They echo her call for chaos and violence while ignoring the democratic will of the people and believing that History will somehow be on their side. Identify a moment in history when those destroying personal property, painting swastikas, and firebombing businesses were considered the good guys. As expected, the public sentiment doesn’t jive with any of their rhetoric: a February 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll reveals widespread frustration with government inefficiency, with 70% of voters—including 58% of Democrats—saying government expenditures are filled with waste, fraud, and inefficiency and 83% favoring reducing expenditures over increasing taxes. The poll shows strong support for Trump’s agenda, with 81% backing the deportation of illegal immigrants who committed crimes, 76% supporting efforts to eliminate fraud and waste in government, and 76% favoring closing the border. Meanwhile, 60% believe Trump and Musk’s DOGE initiative is helping make major cuts to government spending—despite concerns, as 58% say DOGE employees shouldn’t access sensitive data on Americans. Voters also prioritize merit over diversity in government hiring (70%) and view federal debt as unsustainable (67%), with 69% supporting a goal of cutting $1 trillion in expenditures. Bill Clinton axed 400,000 federal jobs in 1993 as part of the “Reinventing Government” initiative, saving an estimated $146 billion—and no “coup” cries happened back then.

The purpose of this article isn’t to drag Smith or “own the libs,” but to mourn the loss of political conversation and debate—a decline that accelerated in 2012 as polarization deepened, twisting many into unprincipled ideology captivity where the default position is simply the opposite of whatever the other side wants. If one side wants a secure border, the other demands no border at all. If one side seeks to lower an unsustainable deficit—where interest payments now exceed defense spending—the other seems indifferent, only interested in issues involving drag queens apparently, even as 67% of voters in a February 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll call the federal debt unsustainable. Christy embodies this trend, urging her posse to “cheer on” fighters and “give [America] something to believe in,” using the word “fight” six times in her rant—a term once considered incitement when used by others, yet now wielded freely by alleged leftist leaders like her. Her allies once pushed for electric vehicle mandates. Now they have turned on Tesla, the world’s most successful EV manufacturer, railing against Elon Musk in her coup fantasy—a perfect example of a Leftist ideology driven more by resentment than principle. This isn’t a coup—it’s performative Leftism, starring figures who banked ActBlue funds under scrutiny, torched jobs, and fueled chaos in California. Santa Clarita deserves better than an unhinged mom preaching civility while embracing and encouraging chaos. We urge Christy Smith to embrace the spirit of democracy and condemn all political violence. Attacking American businesses like Tesla, which supports millions of working-class pensions through its economic impact, is deplorable and undermines the success of everyday Americans.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

Saugus has a history of putting together poorly thought-out bond measures; most of these bonds are 30 years old and have an interest upwards of 7%, such as Measure EE, which was hotly debated in 2014. One of the more foolish decisions on Measure EE was buying new technology/computers on a 30-year bond. Are these people serious? Suppose you buy a laptop or tablet for $1000 on a 30-year bond at 5% for round numbers. By the time the bond is paid off, you would have paid $1950 for a computer that has been outdated for 25 years. This is probably why they keep coming back decade after decade.

True to form , the administration has rushed an ill conceived and deceptive proposal for a General Obligation Bond Issuance on to the agenda for your consideration. You have to approve it tonight or schools will collapse on innocent students. Fear is a powerful motivator isn’t it. ~Steve Petzold

Read Steve Petzold's Response

Hawkins’ presentation, which can be seen here, will discuss AB 300, passed in 1999—yes, 25 years ago—and the fact that many schools, including some in SUSD, had significant “Earthquake/Seismic Needs.” This begs the question: Did SUSD not use the money to fix the Seismic Needs back then, and have they had our students go into unsafe classrooms for the last 25 years? What does AB 300 have to do with this most recent payday loan Hawkins wants to put on the shoulders of Santa Clarita homeowners? Hawkins is either admitting SUSD misappropriated funds and didn’t fix the Seismic Needs, OR she is just gaslighting as usual. Neither would surprise me. It is exactly what Steve Petzold said; this is an attempt to fearmonger, “Won’t somebody please think of the children.”

Another thing that stood out particularly fish is why SCVNews.com published and then pulled a press release dated July 27 that said the following?

”Colleen Hawkins, Ed.D., Superintendent of the Saugus Union School District has announced that the $190M bond measure for facilities improvements authorized by the SUSD board on July 30 will appear on the November ballot.”
~A Pulled Press Release on ScvNews.com stating it passed

The original press release, dated July 24, says something doesn’t smell right here. Is the fix in? Do we have more Brown Act violations from the most seedy school district in the valley? I would not put it past them. Hawkins and the company know this is very unpopular, so she is trying to slip it through without anyone noticing. Here is an idea: how about we cut back on the 56% increase in admin and support salaries since 2012? Teachers’ salary budget has only increased about 6%, well below the 36% inflation during that period. In short, Admin/Support costs increased by 20%, and Teacher’s salaries decreased by 30% once accounted for inflation. We must start a serious conversation about consolidating the elementary school districts, but I will save that for another time.

The Agenda:

The bond measure approval is listed under "IX General Functions A.2024-25 #15" on tonight's agenda. If approved, the measure would be placed on the November general election ballot, requiring 55% of voters' approval to take effect. If passed, the district would receive $190 million for various capital upgrades and improvements.

Everything about this is shifty.

Community Concerns:

Last year, a consulting firm conducted a study revealing that there wasn't enough community support to place this measure on the ballot. Despite this, the SUSD attempts to push it through at the last minute. The community needs to have input in such significant decisions, especially those that could lead to increased taxes.

Call to Action:

We urge the community to voice their concerns and displeasure with this proposal. The school district is proceeding with a bond measure that could lead to higher taxes without adequately considering the community's stance. However, it's essential to scrutinize this proposal closely. The administration has rushed an ill-conceived and vague proposal onto the agenda. The agenda item's wording, "Overview of Facility Measure," is incomplete and lacks transparency. This is also another reason why the SUSD should not vote on renewing Hawkins and her admin team tonight

Past Bond Measure Issues:

In 2022, a similar bond measure proposal was brought forward and needed help to secure a single trustee's motion to pass. Why is the administration trying again now? Past bond measures like Measure EE have faced significant issues, including:

• Ineffective Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) ignoring public concerns.

• Illegal expenditures at closed school sites.

• Mismanagement of bond proceeds, violating the Education Code.

Take Action Now:

It's crucial to stop fostering fear across the district for political gain. Examine this proposal closely before sending it to the ballot. The community deserves transparency and a say in decisions that impact our taxes and schools. To express your opinions, attend tonight's board meeting at 6:30 p.m. at the district's administrative office or via Zoom.

Watch Via Zoom

Please spread the word widely so the community can express their views before deciding. Let's ensure our voices are heard and say NO to this rushed and poorly conceived bond measure proposal.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

August 4 - August 9, 2023: I will summarize this area as it covers most of these events here. I was still keeping an eye on SCV Antifa and saw them post a very clear terrorist threat; LASD Deputy Salazar, under oath, confirmed that this image was a clear terrorist threat. So the question I have for LASD is why didn’t they get the FBI or use their subpoena power to unmask the individuals who made this threat? Why was I the one they were looking at when all I did was repost/retweet the image, tagging Hart district and Saugus High School? Why would Hart allow an extremist like Hindman to be on our school campuses? Are we waiting for another Saugus Shooting to take place before the Hart District and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office take the rise in violent rhetoric seriously? I don’t want to hear the Sheriff throw out the old chestnut "if you see something, say something," because you guys come after the people who say something and ignore what was seen. The fact remains that there is a mentally ill leftist out there who has this gun and a thirst for blood, and it seems like our station can't be bothered to make contact with these individuals.

Rick and Rebecca Hindman would go to the next Hart Board meeting and flat-out lie and defame me, claiming that this substack threatened the district with a gun; both of these clips were played in court and admitted into evidence. Hindman would go on to fight Martha Aguilera about me after the meeting; Goldidox kept trying to say that the fight wasn’t about me, and the court disagreed. The Hindmans then apparently enlisted the help of Saugus High School Principal Genevieve Peterson Henry to help gaslight the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to frame me, the guy warning people of the terrorist threat instead of the terrorist threat itself. Hindman either posted this image herself or knows who did. It's important to note that I submitted a public records request to the Hart District to resolve this situation. However, the Hart District refused to fulfill the request and instead sent their lawyer at me to avoid exposing their actions. Still, somehow, Rebecca Hindman has the email thread from Principal Henry and can enter parts of the email thread into discovery on what planet is that remotely ethical? Hart has a principal who is helping a person who declares themselves a proud terrorist with clear ties to a terrorist organization, and they are worried about the guy trying to give them a heads-up about it. Not a good look for anyone at the Hart District.

“I find it curious that Hindman would file a false police report claiming she was threatened from that retweet and then would leave it off this court filing. Doesn’t even mention it; why hide this information from the court?”

~Excerpt From My First Court Response

By intentionally omitting any mention of the gun retweet, Goldidox made it clear that She didn’t want these SCV Antifa connections on the public record; she probably should have thought about that before filing that bogus restraining order. Pointing that out was the first thing I did in my responses to the petition.

August - October 2023: Hindman would continue to check in with the LASD and expect them to come and arrest me for something; who knows? Her RiseUpSCV accounts are walking contradictions that jump back and forth from being ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) and constantly criticizing law enforcement for “not doing their job” because they don’t arrest her political adversaries. On October 11, my better half texted me to say there were 2 Sheriff’s deputies looking for someone with my last name, but the first name was wrong, so she told them no one lives there with that name. Later that day, I got a voicemail from Deputy Salazar, which I immediately returned; his call and it took me about 7 minutes to straighten everything out; they were under the impression that Goldidox was a School Board Member, which is why, during court, she kept making the claim that there was a threat against a school board member which was utterly false! It is no wonder they were confused between Hindman’s frantic insistence and inability, to tell the truth. Sometime over the next few weeks, Hindman would check in with Deputy Salazar and find out they would not do anything because there was nothing to do. So, after months of harassing the Sheriff over her bogus police report, she got the bright idea to file this bogus restraining order. 🙄

November - Dec 2023: Hindman retained a lawyer who let her act like a complete fool with all the utter nonsense they would send in discovery. He filed this restraining order with the court on November 14 and then waited until the ninth hour to serve it; the service clerk said this was the dumbest thing he had ever had to serve and that there was zero chance this would get issued. I would drop everything and file an 84-page response that would obliterate her silly claims and have them ask for a continuation, which was granted. It should be noted that both SCV Antifa Twitter accounts (there was also a backup account) just so happened to disappear right before the restraining order was filed. Not suspicious at all.

Here are some of the insane things Hindman sent to me in discovery

• Every Twitter screenshot about half a dozen times, in color, in black and white, and with the color inversed along with the screenshot’s metadata because why not?

• Random Conversations on Facebook that I wasn’t even party to.

• A bank statement showing she paid for Wix.com; why? because Goldidox, that’s why.

• Printouts of this Substack: I guess she was flexing that she can operate a web browser and has a printer?

• Printouts of the doxing page on Wikipedia. Oh, and here’s a gem: under reasons for doxing on this page, it says "vigilante aid to law enforcement," which, coincidentally, was her exact excuse for breaking the law. Classic, right?

• Renee Mckellar’s sockpuppet fighting with another anonymous account that she thought was me; it wasn’t. I don’t have time or the desire to fight an Uber driver who lives with their mom and spends all their time flinging fecal matter on social media.

• Back-to-back inverted color pictures of some sign someone made saying she doxed a high schooler; she doxed way more than a high school kid. Props to whoever made that sign.

• There was some bizarre exchange between Shannon Gerson and SCV Antifa. She says that Rebecca said SCV Antifa could be trusted and then goes on to claim I am a “scary guy.” but the account that posts the terrorist threat is apparently “a great community.” Then she tells them, Thoughts and prayers, You ok Shannon?

It was both annoying and amusing simultaneously; I almost sent back a bunch of random printed-out Yelp reviews because that would have been more relevant than what I was being sent. If this is Hindman with a Lawyer, can you imagine her going solo at anything legal? “Wait I can’t just gaslight the court with all my crazy claims?” ~Hindman (probably)

January - May 2023: There were approximately six court dates throughout the process. Most of the time, Hindman’s lawyer would request a continuance. Finally, in April, we went through the questioning. Hundreds of pages of discovery were reduced to three key points. The first was a screenshot of a disrespectful tweet that led to his aggressive response, questioning my use of political speech. I calmly responded, “That's how free speech works, bro." He then put the Gun retweet up, which only allowed me to explain to the court what was happening; her lawyer clearly didn’t understand how Twitter worked. He also kept referring to Mario Presents as a “gay site,” and I kept correcting him several times.

He then tried to put up a fake written statement from Renee Mckellar. I am not sure what it said because it was never disclosed in discovery; it is not damning evidence like printouts from Wikipedia, but based on his lead-up questions, it was made up, and they knew that thus why they didn’t disclose it in discovery. The court shut it right down right away. The funny thing is Mckellar was also attempting a bogus restraining order on another person in the community. The only problem was it was the same judge, and she would have known Mckellar had already tried a stunt in her courtroom, so she was a no-show to her own restraining order petition hearing.

His questioning of Hindman mainly was just for emotional appeal, claiming she was afraid. Hindman’s lawyer even got confused when questioning her on the Guido tweet when he claimed I sent a screen from a map; nope, that was your client, pal. Tell the court you didn’t look at the discovery without telling the court you didn’t look at the discovery. Rick Hindman was called to the stand for some unknown reason. Her Lawyer was done relatively quickly. Clearly, his strategy was to be aggressive and hope that I would fight him so he could trip me up; let’s just say he failed bigly.

Finally, the moment I had been waiting for had come: questioning Rebecca Hindman under penalty of perjury! I had seven pages of potential lines of questions to ask, and her lawyer would repeatedly object, and almost all of them were overruled. I think he won one of his objections, but other than that, I won the vast majority. He would shift and jerk his body around in his chair upset that he had to sit there while his client got destroyed. Hindman and her lawyer would try to talk to each other during her questioning, and the judge had to intervene, warning them that if it happened again, she would go on the stand. When she admitted to being Rise Up SCV, her lawyer’s head whipped around so fast he must have given himself whiplash. That led to questions about her doxing activities, which I needed to explain to the court. The lawyer objected that it wasn’t relevant but was overruled by the judge, who said it is relevant if she is engaging in the same behavior she is complaining about. Hindman would give her vigilante aid to law enforcement justification, which wouldn’t suddenly make it legal. Another good line of questioning was when she said the fight she picked with Martha Aguilera was not about me. Eventually, the judge would step in and agree that the fight was about me and she was just playing semantics. We would go to the bell and need to come back again because I questioned her that long.

May 24, 2024: This would probably be my only real misstep as I put a lot of effort into a PowerPoint to lay out everything when I should have just focused on my closing statement. I did get to show a few videos of the Hindmans lying at the Hart Board that were put into evidence. I was a little frustrated that I didn’t get to show more, but I think the Judge had already made up her mind. I would rest and then ask if I could read my statement; her lawyer would continually interrupt and object, which only annoyed the judge. She kept telling him he couldn’t object to my testimony. The lawyer wanted to ask me more questions, to which the Judge said no, I am ruling. I am paraphrasing here that the judge noted that Hindman failed to reach the burden of proof required to issue a restraining order that any decent person should find the gun imagery disturbing and that what I did was reasonable. The case was dismissed with prejudice, which is court speak for don’t bring this nonsense back into my court again.

Hindman’s jaw dropped, and her head whipped around to look at Rick Hindman. Her lawyer then got into a back-and-forth with the judge about not being allowed to question me more. And that is how a guy with one law class and a few friends took down a lawyer with nearly 40 years of experience. I really hope this is the last time I have to write about the Hindmans, but who knows? This woman is ideologically captured and doesn’t know how to stop digging when she finds herself in a hole. I was really shocked that we went the distance on this, but she was determined to completely discredit herself. I was more or less done writing about her last August; what more was to be said after her meltdown and trying to fight another parent? It should have been clear who the good guys and bad guys were in this after that.

Click To Read Entire Substack Series

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

Read null in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Tip: For the optimal reading experience, I suggest downloading the Substack App, which features a convenient function for listening to substacks in a natural-sounding voice.

Let’s Start From The Beginning

Let's rewind to where we left off - Rebecca Hindman causing chaos at the board meeting, picking fights with other parents, and even forcing Mike Kuhlman to leave the dais to step in and break up the drama she created. And all this, mind you, after lecturing the board about the absence of a code of conduct for parents, Classic Rebecca! 🤦🏼‍♂️ Tell this correctly: we have to go back even further.

March 24: Goldidox wrote on SUSD's Facebook page, "This is not the first time you have made threats, and I suspect it won't be the last based on your notorious behavior." If this is true, why would she engage and torment a person she claims is a threat? She couldn't conjure up a convincing response in court; she seemed to think it was her noble obligation to battle it out with people online, all the while spewing this falsehood in her initial complaint under penalty of perjury, "I have not invoked, escalated to, or in any other way invited such a response, I have only posted my political views and he not only posted this threat but continues to post and have posted this physical threat, through to today." Sure thing Goldidox.

March 26: A domain and blog were set up to cyber-harass and dox me. Initially, I thought this was likely Gerson; later, the behavior of the Twitter account made it very clear that it was also likely Hindman. Most of the "blogs" were just AI-generated nonsense, and the ones written to smear me were very poorly written, just like a certain court complaint. This person also went out of their way to create social media accounts just for little old me.

March 30: Rebecca “Goldidox” Hindman began appearing on the SUSD Facebook page to defend Hawkins. Golidox writes, “You might want to tread carefully. This can be construed as slander.” She then writes, “If you want to continue this unfounded attack, please do, and I will contact an attorney and sue You for slander because what you are stating is a false accusation and not factual.” What does she claim is "slander" against her? Well, let me remind you of my accurate statement – she doxes people in the community, which was accurate then, and that she was Rise Up SCV. And guess what? She later admitted under oath that she is Rise Up SCV, which has doxed countless people. Her lawyer lost it when she told the truth, claiming that she only doxed people because they had committed a crime and she was aiding law enforcement. But here's the kicker – half the time, the police told her that there was no crime committed, and she then criticized that law enforcement and doxed the person anyway. Rebecca Hindman wrote about one doxing incident: “LASD claimed this behavior was 1A. No it's not. This is child endangerment and stalking.” So, the Sheriff witnessed what happened, and she still claimed that all these crimes had been committed. Keep spinning those lies, Goldidox. This early threat shows how hell-bent she was on dragging me into court one way or the other.

June 30: I published the following post, Who is SCV Antifa?, where I laid out the evidence that Rebecca Hindman is likely one of 6 or 7 people who have posted under SCVAntifa’s various accounts. This is really when all hell started to break loose. Antifa has to operate anonymously to be effective; make no mistake, this terrorist organization has protocols; just type in “Antifa Handbook” on Amazon, and you will see several by different authors along with books like the Anarchist Cookbook.

July 1 - July 9: For the proceeding week or two, the SCV Antifa account began an onslaught of personal attacks at me, insisting that Rebecca Hindman wasn’t one of them. Why would an anonymous account care so much? They threw everything they could to get a reaction from me; at one point, claiming that I was wrong and that they would meet me at a restaurant near my house, to which I responded that I wouldn’t want Rebecca to have to drive across town and suggest that we meet at Guido’s in Saugus which is near her house, and she would attempt to frame this in court as stalking when I am just playing along with their game. She ran for public office who doesn’t know where she lives? Every claim she attempted to make in court was my snarky response to one of their attempts to get a rise out of me.

The SCV Antifa account was reaching to get a reaction when I was laughing the whole time. I mean, come on, they're trying to build a legal case against me, and so they bring up my son, who we nicknamed "monkey" for privacy reasons when he was younger. I found it pretty hilarious, actually. My son happens to be a varsity D-line player at the time, holds a black belt in Taekwondo, and is working on his black belt in Krav Maga. If he were 6 years old, I might have considered filing a police report, but let's be real here – he's a certified badass. So, I couldn't help but fire back with a mocking reminder that he's not someone you probably want to mess with.

In her court complaint, Goldidox tried to pull a fast one by twisting the exchanges to make it seem like I was threatening to send my son to kick her ass. She even claimed not to know who I was talking about in her court complaint and submitted screenshots where she conveniently redacted my own words and kept accusing me of threatening her with someone called "monkey," like I'm some kind of mobster with a henchman named "lil Chango."

The image above is what she redacted to change context, removing “you did this to Messina talking about his son for some reason” because it gives context. She didn’t want the court asking questions about what I meant and opening the window to show this insane video of her stalking her opponent’s family, scrolling back 6 years to find anything to attack him. If you haven’t seen this video, I edited it for time's sake, but watch her facial expressions in this video. She thinks this is normal for a grown adult to do and not utterly psychotic behavior.

During discovery, Hindman would send this screen of a weird DM from her to SCV Antifascist; she likely thought this would somehow prove she doesn’t have ties to SCV Antifa when, in fact, it made her look even more guilty.

Let’s break it down.

1. Knew who my son was: Hindman writes, “Be careful with [redacted], he is now threatening that his kid will hurt me.” So she did know who Monkey was, knew he was a Hart student, and just lied in her court complaint that she didn’t know who he was.

2. Warns SCV Antifa to be careful of me: Why is she warning and explaining this to the account?

   1. SCV Antifa brought up my son’s nickname in the first place; they would know who he is; otherwise, why would they have brought it up?

   2. My response was back at this account; they would already know everything she is saying here.

3. Calls them “Dangerous A-Holes: Goldidox goes on to say, “and linking me to some dangerous assholes” Well, intelligent readers of this substack, who are the dangerous A-holes I am linking Goldidox to? Isn’t exactly who she is talking to right here, and now she calls them “dangerous A-holes” directly?

4. Collaborates with the Dangerous A-holes: She goes on to attempt to collaborate with the “dangerous A-holes” she doesn’t want to be linked to.

I can't make this up. It's almost as if someone had a bit too much wine and decided at 11:09 pm that they were going to 'prove' that she is totally not associated with SCV Antifa by writing the most damning screenshot yet! I couldn’t wait to get Hindman under oath after this came through discovery. When asked if she had ever posted anything under any of the SCVAntifa accounts, she replied, “Not to my recollection,” which is a coached response from her lawyer that translates into “No, unless you prove I did, in which case I will claim I didn’t remember.” She is so bad at this.

Unsurprisingly, she also refused to condemn Antifa because what was Rebecca Hindman doing when cities were burning in 2020? She was promoting a riot gear drive for the most violent chapter of Antifa in the country, Rose City Antifa in Portland, that torched 15 police cars last month. So when this Antifa chapter set fire to a federal courthouse, maybe they were using stuff that Hindman collected and sent up there.

In the coming Substacks, we will review the final court hearings and outcomes, along with possible next steps we would like to take to ensure their consequences and that this doesn’t happen to another family in our community.

Click To Read Entire Substack Series

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

Read null in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Tip: For the optimal reading experience, I suggest downloading the Substack App, which features a convenient function for listening to substacks in a natural-sounding voice.

Alright, buckle up and get ready for the ride! We're back in the pilot's seat, and I'm thrilled to take you on a little recap journey of the last 10 months. Last summer, I began my journey to obtain my master's degree. After writing the equivalent of 5 to 10 substacks each week, the last thing I felt like doing was sitting down and writing more. I did plan to catch up in December, but I had an unexpected visitor at the end of November, which I will discuss in various chapters of this substack series.

Before I reflect on the past year, I would like to express my gratitude to the individuals who supported me during this challenging time. I want to give a special shout-out to the exceptional Karen Frost of Moms for Liberty Los Angeles County. She has bravely endured daily harassment from Goldidox and her group of leftist trolls. Goldidox has been posting unflattering pictures of Karen and the other members of Moms for Liberty (M4L) and has unsurprisingly stooped to calling them Nazis simply because they disagree with having unqualified school officials involved in our children's sexual health. In her recent interview with Fox News at Night, Karen Frost reiterated M4L's stance on book banning. It was made clear that M4L does not support book banning. However, it was also emphasized that there is a significant distinction between banning books and curating school libraries with age-appropriate materials. All books, regardless of their content, have the right to exist.

The incredibly talented Patriot J is both a lawyer and a hip-hop artist. He refused to take my money, saying, "It sounds like you've got this under control; I don't think you need me." Imagine that a lawyer with integrity! Hearing how amused he was when I would give him a recap of Hindman's lawyer's various antics was always reassuring. If you're a hip-hop fan, check out his music. My favorite song of his is “Thought Criminal,” which delves into the story of a former friend who tried to cancel him for a joke he made on social media years ago, back when he was still in school. Oh, cancel culture, we don’t miss you at all.

Open in Spotify

Then we have the fabulous and unshakable Mario Presents, who you might know from his time with Gays against Groomers. He drove for at least an hour to see Goldidox lose in court. Mario is probably among the gentlest souls you will ever meet, yet he is fearless in the face of Antifa thugs. He has had multiple run-ins with Rebecca “GoldiDox” Hindman and the clowns behind the SCV Antifascist accounts (Example: One, Two & Three). They dislike that he won’t conform to the identity box they created for him. His support means the world to my family, and he came dressed to the nines, rocking some stilettos. We were so honored to have his support, and we can’t thank him enough!

Last, I want to discuss how this situation has affected my family. The entire ordeal was very stressful for my better half. She felt like a weight was on her shoulders, especially because she had to hear all the lies that Hindman was spreading. If Hindman told you she was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), she lied to you. Hindman attempted to get it granted three separate times but was denied each time by two different judges. In addition to hearing all the blatant lies being spun about our family, she was getting lovely little DM from the losers hiding behind SCVAntifa, like below.

My son had a tough time during his final year of high school because of this, even though none of it was his fault. Rebecca Hindman, who ironically wants to be a school counselor, has a history of harassing anyone she disagrees with, regardless of their age. This is not the first time, and probably won't be the last, that she has made up lies to harass high school students. So to my family, I'm sorry that both of you had to deal with this from these bad actors in town. Unfortunately, the Hart School District failed to stop it and even encouraged and helped Rebecca Hindman’s manipulation, gaslighting, and defamation of my family.

In the coming Substacks, we will review all the legal jockeying, final court hearings, and outcomes, along with possible next steps we would like to take to ensure their consequences and that this doesn’t happen to another family in our community.

Click To Read Entire Substack Series

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

Get more from Accountable SCV in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Tip: For the optimal reading experience, I suggest downloading the Substack App, which features a convenient function for listening to substacks in a natural-sounding voice.

Now to our regularly scheduled programming, we got a double dose of the Hindman duo performing backflips in the oppression Olympics. First, Rick Hindman, tries to push the nonsense that this substack made a threat toward Saugus, Hart District, and Hindman herself. This misinformation stems from SCV Antifa tweeting the image below that shows a gun, loaded magazines, and a shirt that says, “This machine kills proud boys,” and another picture of a bullet-riddled target. AccountableSCV retweeted with the following text “Dear. @HartDistrict & @SaugusHigh, does @HindmanforHart seem like someone we should have around our kids? Consider these warning shots fired” We don’t even think one could consider the SCV Antifa Twitter account that is associated with Hindman as “a warning shot” for the district; a person showing this kind of violent political imagery should be instantly disqualified from being on School campuses; it should just be automatic. It was Rose City Antifa that murdered Aaron Danielson in August 2020, the month before Hindman collected supplies for the exact same organization. So no, Rebecca Hindman was never threatened by anyone with a gun; Hindman is literally doing this meme.

Next up, we got Rebecca Hindman herself, who wants rules for parents that bully; Hindman said, “How are you dealing with parents whose behavior is threatening to others including students, teachers, and other parents” and then goes on to say, “Should these parents be allowed on campus if they have made threats to the school, district, or another parent” We couldn't agree more, Rebecca. Should we allow a parent who doxed a student and forced said student to home-school and then bragged about it to be allowed on campus? What about a parent that has doxed multiple community members? Hindman has exactly zero creditability in this department, last week when she had an unhinged Twitter meltdown and started attacking people she believed are connected to this substack, which included a current Hart student with a sock puppet account but was so inept that she used an account that (and we are not making this up) had two followers one was SCVAntifa and the other was HindmanForHart. She is very bad at this anonymous twitter thing.

As anyone can see from the above video, Hindman clearly instigated a confrontation with Martha Aguilera. Mere minutes after complaining about parents bullying other parents and asking that those parents be banned from school campuses. This move mirrors previous incidents where Hindman and company instigates a conflict, makes false claims about the target, and then encouraged her followers to Dox that individual. Suvany Cowie, who filmed the coordinated confrontation before Martha had even got out of the room, refuses to release the video. Instead, like all the other doxing incidents, they make up false narratives; below are screens of Shannon Patricia Laine Gerson, who attempted to make Martha’s response to this unneeded confrontation instigated by Hindman the real problem. But as the saying goes, Hindman F’d around and Found out quickly that Martha was not going to tolerate some entitled white leftist stopping her from leaving a public meeting with her child. What hasn’t been mentioned by anyone is that Hindman was harassing Martha earlier in the evening. This is the same Hindman that claims she is afraid for her family's safety; why would a person who claims to be afraid for their family's safety instigate potentially violent confrontations? The short answer is that Hindman is just a horrible liar; she knows that retweeting gun imagery from an account she is associated with is not a threat. This substack has never and will never threaten violence on anyone; we fully condemn all forms of political violence. This is something that Hindman is unable to say, as she once declared herself a “proud terrorist” along with praising violent civil unrest.

So Martha really has nothing to apologize for; Mike Kuhlman, on the other hand, can’t help but mess up everything he touches. We have seen more than a few email responses from Kuhlman where he attempts to blame “both sides,” sorry Mike, the video evidence tells a different story. Why is Kuhlman running cover for Hindman, following and confronting another mom with her child into the hallway and verbally attacking her? What if the shoe was on the other foot? Would Kuhlman be saying it is both sides’ fault? The video couldn’t be more clear. Martha and other parents now feel unable to bring their children to school board meetings because of Kuhlman’s inaction. The Hindman violent episode should be an instant removal from Saugus’ PTSO.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

”Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride🏳️‍🌈, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her… neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy… they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away” ~Ezekiel 16:49-50 (ASV)

We don’t normally quote scripture, as it can be an appeal to authority logical fallacy. In this case, the description of the sins of Sodom is pretty spot on to 2023 leftists. Many people teach that Sodom and Gomorrah were only destroyed because of their sexual behaviors, but this tells a different story; this passage talks about the real sins of Sodom, and number one was pride. It describes a community with a prosperous and easy life but does nothing to help the poor and needy. We passed Proposition HHH, which was supposed to remedy the homeless problem, and seven years later, the problem has only worsened. The last part of the scripture says that they were haughty, the definition of which is “blatantly and disdainfully proud : having or showing an attitude of superiority and contempt for people or things perceived to be inferior.” I can’t think of a better word to describe hardcore leftist than haughty. This passage paints a picture of self-absorbed, privileged people so obsessed with self-gratification that they ignore their communities' real problems, like rampant homelessness.

How do you know if a leftist has a gay kid? Don't worry; they will tell you every 10 minutes. Don't even think about running for public office as a Democrat if you are straight or have straight kids; you are clearly not an ally of the LGBT+ community. We probably missed a bunch, but just off the top of our heads, Andrew Taban, Beth Braunstein, Rebecca Hindman, and Sage Rafferty prove Bill Maher is right on the money with this observation that much of this phenomenon is because it is trendy just like smoking being prescribed by doctors in the 50s, diet pills in the 80s and gluten being the devil in the 2000s. Congrats, you losers are what nu-metal was to music in the early 2000s.

Subscribe now

Take a look at haughty Rebecca “GoldiDox” Hindman, for instance; she is a better parent than you; if you don't believe us, just ask her. She attacked a former Democrat parent who is not okay with Michael Koegle, an alleged science teacher at the Academy of the Canyons (AOC), socially transitioning their daughter to be trans without their knowldge. How dare a parent not want her daughter to be encouraged to change their body permanently based on a trend? Academy of the Canyons (AOC) has earned the nickname “Gay OC” because it is estimated that around 40% of students identify as LGBT+. Nearly every time Hindman shows up to drone on at a Hart board meeting, she has to announce to a room full of eye rolls that all three of her kids are part of what she calls the "alphabet army." You might ask how that is possible when only 7.1% of the U.S. population identifies as LGBT+, but in the words of Greta Thunberg, How dare you ask such a logical question. Sure, the odds of all 3 of her children naturally being born LGBT+ is about 1 in 3000, but Becky Hindman is like a woke Han Solo; never tell her the odds, and don't you dare call her a groomer. Can I get an amen, Becky boo? Hindman allows her kids to be what they want to be… but be gay, no pressure. See the disturbing TikTok below for reference.

Leftists are obsessed with attacking Christians; Nati Braunstein (Husband of elected official Beth Braunstein) called Christians “science-denying Christofascist.” It goes without saying that Nati is too much of a coward to call Muslims who banned the “pride” flag from being displayed on public property in a town in Michigan Islamofascists. Science-denying, you say, Nati? Where is the science of “gender-affirming care?” What are the side effects of Medroxyprogesterone acetate, a common drug in “gender-affirming therapy” that has long been used to castrate sex offenders chemically? Or the side effects of Lupron, another “gender-affirming” drug that was initially developed to lower testosterone levels in men with prostate cancer but would essentially chemically castrate them as well. We know it hinders the development of bone density and can have other irreversible consequences, like sterility and the inability to orgasm. Just go and google “phalloplasty” to see what they do to these minors’ bodies, or go to youtube and watch many heart-wrenching detransition stories. This stuff is forever, and people outside the stakeholders shouldn’t be pushing these kinds of permanent decisions on minors. That is why countries all over Europe are pumping the brakes on all of this stuff; it is almost like they remember all the way back to 2020 and don’t trust the same ghouls telling people to trust the “experts,” this, of course, means ignore other experts like Dr. Paul R. McHugh the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital that stated very plainly that transgenderism is a mental disorder and sex change is impossible.

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital

617KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

No one is arguing that transexual people experiencing gender dysphoria are not real and do not deserve compassion and respect; it is quite the opposite. We don’t affirm people with body dysmorphia; “oh yes, person with anorexia, you totally are fat and shouldn’t eat this week.” The people who shouldn’t get compassion or respect are grooming school administrators that kind that whispers in kids’ ears if they know who “z” is. We see you, Susan Bett & Amanda Howard of West Creek Academy. A person doesn’t have to be religious to think critically and weigh the trade-offs of what is called “gender affirming care,” Bill Maher, a noted atheist and guy who made a documentary making fun of religion, made a must-watch new rule monologue calling out the extreme gender ideology being push by leftists. Maher makes the point that; just because a person is from a marginalized group doesn’t mean they always get to be right.

One group of people who always seems to benefit from society’s misery is the Medical Industrial Complex, commonly known as Big Pharma; these guys always have a solution to your problem. Junior is having trouble paying attention in school; we got a pill for that here is Ritalin or Adderall, then like clockwork, suddenly, any problems with a child is diagnosed with ADHD. Oh, you are feeling depressed; you must have low serotonin levels; we have a pill for that too. Did a virus leak from a lab because an evil Keebler Elf used your money to fund gain of function research? We have a jab for that; we just so happened to be working on the exact mRNA “gene therapy” shot that we will label as a vaccination, so we can call you anti-vax if you question it, and no, you cannot know the side effects beforehand. We are currently at, oh, your child feels awkward in their body? They must be in the wrong body, never fear; we have a “solution” for that, too, and you will do it, or we will take your kid from you. Below is a Big Pharma exec from Bayer, the company that knowingly gave people HIV in the 80s, admitting that most people would have rejected mRNA “gene therapy” 2 years before. However, thanks to the media and all the nonsense spewing leftists, a record number of people now love it and can’t wait to get their next booster despite little evidence that they make any difference.

The “gender-affirming” drug Lupron’s manufacturer, AbbVie, made $726 million on the drug alone in 2018. AbbVie joined other major pharmaceutical companies in lobbying to keep drug prices high while virtue-signaling about DEI (Diversity, equity, and inclusion). Since Transexual people require medical support for the rest of their lives, they are the perfect customer for Big Pharma. Combine this with social media algorithms and the well-documented phenomenon known as “peer contagion,” i.e., kids pressuring each other into thinking they’re all trans. You don’t have to be a bible thumper to know this is not a healthy place for our society to be, that “gender-affirming care” is a giant leap into the unknown, and that a good and decent society doesn’t experiment on kids. It is alarming how easily Big Pharma can twist the social narratives almost on a dime; Leftists were against the mRNA gene therapy when it was first introduced under Donald Trump, then flipped on their position soon as Biden took the white house.

Most decent people have concluded that adults should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies; if you want to cut off your dick, be our guest. Whatever sexual thing two or more consenting adults want to get into, again, get down with your bad self. The line for decent people is pretty clear though don’t mess with kids and animals. If adults want to dress up like animals and bang? Fine. Just don’t dress up like a dog and f*** a dog. This seemed pretty clear ten years ago but apparently needs to be reiterated because some of you have forgotten how a decent society should operate. In a decent society, women, if that word confuses, we will help define as an “adult human female” Young women should not lose their college scholarships because mediocre males decide they are actually female and become women’s track gods overnight. We don’t think women should have to be subjected to seeing penises in the women’s locker room. We don’t think incarcerated women should be subjected to rape and impregnation because a man claims to be a woman. Why can’t leftists ever be honest and admit that there are some people using these loopholes to their advantage?

If you or someone you know is having their kid groomed by a teacher or school administrator in Santa Clarita, please let us know. As leftists love to say about free speech, you can have free speech but not freedom from consequences. It might be legal to groom kids in schools in this ass-backward state we live in, but that doesn’t make it moral and doesn’t free groomers from the consequences of their actions. Just look at the Armenian dads in Glendale; this kind of violence is coming to Santa Clarita unless drastic action is taken.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.

So Who is SCV Antifa? All evidence seems to point to Goldidox herself, Rebecca Hindman. We have already established that Rebecca Hindman has an affinity for Antifa; she already followed 2 Antifa accounts on her activists’ Twitter account, Rise Up SCV, and helped collect supplies for Rose City Antifa, by far the biggest and most violent sect, which rioted for months in Portland. The reason it is called Rose city is because a Rose is the logo for Social democracy do you remember when they started throwing that term around it is not socialism it is social democracy. These leftist are always playing word games. Hindman made a graphic for The Rise Up Instagram account covering protests with violent civil unrest, giving a full-throated endorsement of the Antifa riots. Btw what alleged “rights” were Antifa fighting for anyway? Everyone basically agreed that what happened to George Floyd was horrible and Derek Chauvin needed to face justice which happened. Antifa wasn’t fighting for any group’s rights; they saw that opportunity to sow violent civil unrest in the hope of causing an insurrection.

Exhibit A: Both Rise Up SCV and SCV Antifa have backup accounts after the original SCV Antifa account got suspended, likely because of the many threats of violence Hindman feels so entitled to make towards anyone she disagrees with. This account literally threatened to murder Matt Walsh’s newborn twins; what kind of psycho even does that? Whenever this account puts the target with an arrow emoji, it is a threat, and they are calling back to the Antifa logo that has three arrows; the arrows represent the movements that the 1930s Social Democratic Party of Germany wanted to kill, which were Papen, the leader of the Conservative Party; Hitler, the leader of the Nazi party and Ernst Thälmann, the leader of the communist party. Here is an example. Letfist are not reasonable people.The Antifa cult does not believe in borders of any kind, which is why the term nationalist has become such a popular slur with leftists (i.e., White Nationalist or Christian Nationalist); basically, if you are white and or Christian and love your country, you are a fascist to these losers. This is why Hindman stands for the pledge of allegiance in school board meetings but never puts her hand on her heart or recites the pledge; she is just too big of a coward to sit, and she is trying to juggle her multiple online personalities. She wants to be a badass revolutionary Che Guevara type that will kick a fascist in the teeth but simultaneously a wholesome suburban mom (see Hindman for Hart avatar) who is just trying to protect the kids. After the SCV Antifa account was suspended in August 2022, Hindman created a new SCV Antifa and a backup account for SCV Antifa and also for Rise Up SCV over two years after the original was created. At the time, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was imminent, and Hindman was likely afraid she might lose some of her influence. Maybe we should have the titled of our last Hindman article Goldidox and the three Twitter accounts.

Exhibit B: The person that runs SCV Antifa is old enough to have a 16-year-old, so this isn’t your typical Antifa profile of a young spoiled white leftist that sat in too many Intersectionality classes. What a coincidence; Hindman had a 16-year-old at the time. The account also uses one of Hindman’s favorite phrases, “Honey,” in the email that Martha Aguilera sent to Accountable SCV and Hindman, Martha specifically mentioned that Hindman said, “Oh Honey” with her usual condescending tone, to which Aguilera took exception. SCV Antifa uses the same phrase and usage when trying to make herself sound superior to someone smarter than her. She uses the distinct voice marker “Honey” or “Oh Honey” at least 4-5 separate times in response to people.

Exhibit C: SCV Antifa mirrors Hindman’s obsessive nature; she used just to be obsessed with Joe Messina, but now she has added Anna Griese to the mix and now shows up at every SUSD meeting to spew some nonsense. The same too is with SCV Antifa; her obsessive targets are Kyle Rittenhouse (She is really mad he killed a Pedo Antifa member in self-defense), Mike Garcia (She has posted pictures of his house, Garcia should get a restraining order since she likes to brag about having a gun), Matt Walsh (who made the movie what is a woman?), Mario Presents of Gays Against Groomers (She gets in a catty back and forth with Mario and insults Mario’s posterior Meeeow, one of these two has an ass that looks like a flat basketball, but it is not Mario), Marjorie Taylor Greene (She loves calling Mrs. Greene a c**t every time she tweets), Ashli Babbitt (She constantly says she wants a p**s on her grave and on March 11, 2023, posted a picture of Ashli dying five times in a matter of 2 minutes in reply to tweets). Wasn’t this the woman scolding people to be civil? Hindman is not a particularly smart person; It is the effort she goes to create all these different accounts so she can say depraved things to conservatives who likely have their tweet replies set to only to show people that they follow, so these asinine things she spends all her time posting have less than ten views and a good portion of those views are from the writers of this substack.

Exhibit D: SCV Antifa and Hindman are both Nazi-obsessed; in fact, Hindman is so obsessed that she was hilariously the only person who spoke at the last Saugus Union Meeting; she left her house and drove to a school board meeting during summer when school is not in session, and her kids don’t even attend to scold Anna and repeating the ridiculous lie that Moms For Liberty has ties to Hitler 😂, She made this claim because of a tweet by a person named Andrew Wortman, we were not able to confirm the quote was Hitler and even if we could that doesn’t suddenly make an organization have ties to Hitler, she does mental gymnastics and claims that a Twitter account called “Stand Up LA Moms” which looks to be just an activist Twitter account no connection other than similar cause. Hindman attempts to tie Anna Griese to the fake Hitler quote but said she spoke at the LA County Young Republicans with Stand Up LA Moms and, somehow, through that association, is now connected to Moms for Liberty and Hitler. What utter intellectual dishonesty, but wait, there is more before the meeting that she so needed to speak at to tell everyone about this fake revelation; it gets better SCV Antifa retweeted the tweet in question early the same day that she made this dubious claim and then a few days before that she replied to the Moms For Liberty Twitter with “Oh Look - Its Nazi Moms.” Hindman is like Charlie Kelly from Alway Sunny in Philadelphia with his conspiracy whiteboard, trying to connect everyone she dislikes to Nazis.

SCV Antifa Worst Tweets

At the end of the day, Hindman played stupid games and won stupid prizes; she has now inspired many Santa Clarita moms to band together to start an SCV chapter of Moms For Liberty (oh no, Hitler is marching down Mcbean 😂), so good job. She also gave this substack the last piece of the puzzle to connect SCV Antifa to Goldidox. Now we ask the Hart Board and the Saugus High School PTSO officers to remove Rebeca Hindman as Saugus High School PTSO treasurer; no one this twisted and disturbed should be around our students. If you choose to send emails to the Hart Board trustees or Saugus High School PTSO officers, please do not embarrass this substack by being rude or hostile, and remember we are the good guys; we don’t name call, we don’t threaten, we certainly don’t desire to murder people that disagree with us. Choose kindness in those emails.

If the Twitter fits, you must convict. Remove Hindman from Saugus High School’s PTSO immediately.

Be sure to subscribe to stay current on the latest from Accountable SCV and consider supporting through a paid subscription.