.
.
.
With wife Jocelyn Ragsdale.
Editor’s note: You wanna post negative stuff about a politician on this blog without using your name? It’ll have to be as well documented as this story is, and so will your fear of reprisal, which does check out, from this vengeful politician, this Derek Reeve, just re-elected for a third term on San Juan Capistrano’s City Council.
Derek’s commented on this blog a few times – we share a common enemy in cutthroat Newport consultant Dave Ellis. Wheelchair-bound and suffering from some degenerative illness, Derek was first elected to council in 2010 as a “tea-partier.” We realize “tea-partier” could mean almost anything. In Derek’s case, he was the kind who showed his contempt for San Juan Capistrano’s Muslims by naming his dog Muhammad, something he’s refused to apologize for in these nine years.
According to our SJC friends, he also came into office as a champion of neighborhoods and foe of over-development, but since being re-elected in 2014 (and now again in 2018) with developer dollars, has made an about-face on all his promises, and now never says no to new development and re-zoning in one of California’s oldest most historic communities.
But this here is mainly a story about the shameless grifting of Derek and his wife Jocelyn Ragsdale. I give you “The Swallows”…
***************************
When first elected in 2010, Derek Reeve was considered a “good-guy councilman” by many who counted on him to protect SJC from over-development, more traffic, etc. After he was re-elected in 2014 however, he turned to the dark side by teaming up with developers, and betrayed his constituents (and his friends) by breaking his campaign promises to protect San Juan. No surprise there; such is politics. During the recent SJC city council campaign, however, info surfaced which did take many by surprise, mostly in regards to his 2010 “marriage.”
Despite having gone through an elaborate wedding in 2010, self-described “husband, father, family man” Derek Reeve is most definitely not married to the woman he claims is his wife, Jocelyn Ragsdale. (No record of a legal marriage exists.) Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be a big deal, but Ragsdale is the widow of a veteran, and if she re-married, she would no longer be entitled to survivor’s benefits from the Veterans Administration/social security. This, as it turns out, may be a very big deal, because Ragsdale defrauded the VA in order to buy an investment rental property, using her deceased husband’s VA benefits.
No-down, low cost VA loans are intended to help veterans buy a home to live in, not to purchase rental investment property. As a result, VA loans require buyers to live at the property as their primary residence for at least a year, beginning within two months of purchase. But Ragsdale already had a primary residence, having lived full time with Reeve since 2010. Reeve added her to the title of his home in January, 2015, listing her as a widowed “single woman” in an “inter-family transfer”. Documents show that Ragsdale purchased the rental property at the end of October 2015, listed it for rent in January 2016, and rented it out from Feb 2016 to May 2018, when she sold it for a profit of $235,000.
A local non-profit group, HomeFront America, with whom the City has a joint agreement to provide charitable support services to military families, received a letter from Reeve recently, sent from his City Council email address, accusing them of releasing the negative info about him during the campaign, and threatening their status with the city for allegedly releasing it. HomeFront America had no knowledge of the VA loan fraud, and were incensed that Reeve used his council position to issue a not-so-veiled threat about their status with the City being jeopardized by an alleged action for which he had no proof, and which they adamantly insist is false. They confronted him during a recent council meeting:
And here is a video clip of WWII Navy veteran Art Hasselbrink, confronting Reeve at the same council meeting. Note that Reeve does not respond to the charge:
Judging by past behavior, Ragsdale is likely also collecting taxpayer-funded benefits for being Reeve’s full-time caretaker as well ($3,000/month), although that info is private so there is no way to verify it.
But WAIT – there’s more…
Reeve said back in 2016 that “their” two kids (in reality, Ragsdale’s kids) were receiving free “low income assistance” tuition at Saddleback Valley Christian School, a private school which costs about $12,000 to $13,000 per year per student. They attended SVCS for at least three (maybe four) years, before transferring this Fall to the also private J Serra Catholic High School. Given her history, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether she is getting “low-income assistance” for her boys to attend J Serra too (The cost is around $15,000 per year, per student). We swallows wonder if they know that she, unlike many families, owned two homes, one of which she derived rental income from before selling for a profit of $235,000, and that she is likely collecting significant taxpayer-funded benefits as a “widow”, while Reeve claims she is his wife. we’re guessing not.
Both schools have benefited from Reeve’s term on the council, as both were in need of city approvals for expansion (in SVCS’ case) and in J Serra’s case, Reeve voted to approve amenities previously denied them by the city (because they are considered intrusive by the surrounding neighborhoods). None of the free tuition has been reported on Reeve’s form 760’s. No doubt his defense would be that they’re not legally his kids, but that rings hollow when he has spent the past 8 years publicly pontificating about fatherhood, about “his children”, about how proud he is of his wife and kids, etc., ad nauseam – for eight years.
Estimates of what Ragsdale is raking in from the taxpayers is likely between $5,000 to $6,000 per month, possibly more, but there is no way to verify it without access to her tax returns.
Announcement of the happy “wedding” – click for larger image
In addition to the loan fraud, we wonder if the happy couple have given back any of the wedding gifts they accepted from the 60 guests at their fake wedding, or from any of the 30 guests who attended the fake shower thrown for Jocelyn (which neither the hosts nor guests knew were fake until recently). We’re guessing not.
We don’t know about you, but we think that what Reeve and Ragsdale have done/are doing is outrageous. Not only have they not paid a price for their frauds, but Reeve was just rewarded with re-election to a third term after developers poured tons of money into his campaign. The developers are sure to be paid back with much-desired development approvals. Taxpayers and SJC residents… not so much.
By the way, did we mention that Reeve is a lawyer, who calls himself a “constitutional attorney”?
Much more to come, in the coming weeks and months, regarding the “Con of San Juan” and his cohorts!
– Love, The Swallows.
I’m sure that Derek’s running mates for City Council, Bourne and Taylor, will now be trying to distance themselves from Reeve. I don’t blame them.
Who would want to be supportive of a guy who ran a scam on the Veterans Administration ? And lied to everyone in town ?
@ Don Juan… It’s going to be very interesting to see if the current city council and city government will continue to support and condone Mr. Derek’s lying and fraudulent conduct? My guess is that they will NOT hold him accountable. I certainly hope I’m wrong though! RESIGN REEVE!!
I almost voted for that kid all of the candidates were bad lol I didn’t vote for anyone. Next time I hope we get someone better!
VA mortgage application fraud is a serious federal felony with steep fines and imprlsonment and a slap in the face to all veterans who rightly earn these benefits.
As I’ve noted, anyone who thinks that they have the goods can notify the federal government, perhaps even collect a bounty on any recovery. What I think of the underlying claims doesn’t negate that fact.
Well, I was just forwarded this post and surprised to see it land in the Orange Juice Blog. If you are going to support and promote vicious personal attacks from anonymous sources, just know that’s what you are supporting and sending out into the world.
The deceased gentleman that everyone seems to be glossing over was a VETERAN, WHO SERVED OUR COUNTRY. The two “boys” that are mentioned in passing, are THE SONS OF THE DECEASED VETERAN. Where is the respect to the gentlemen who served our country and his sons? There are even attacks in this blog regarding the boys receiving financial support for their education. Whoever is trying to sell that someone is getting rich here, knows that is a lie. The individuals involved here are not people with great means. Reeve, an individual with an affliction so intense that he can’t wipe his own nose, or pick up a phone, or raise the remote to change the TV, or take a sip of water on his own, has acted and provided as a father and mentor to these boys and, along with their mother, has raised them into fine young men. Young men that are easily capable of seeing the “hate” in this flagrant disregard of both of their fathers and attack on their mother.
You can try to hide behind proclamations of red tape and the “way it works,” but if Veteran benefits are not there to service two young sons of a deceased veteran and their mother, it’s hard to quantify their true purpose.
Even with his afflictions that would make many just give up on life, Reeve still managed to graduate college, acquire a law degree, support himself, and be elected to public office. And now we land at the TRUE REASON FOR THIS ATTACK. The small hateful group that want to control City Council votes and force a Council Member to vote the way they want “or else.” This same group has failed time after time attempting to recall numerous City Council Members. Their last attempt was to recall Derek Reeve and Kerry Ferguson, mere weeks before the last election. Even in spite of the false information and accusations being spread around, not only did their recall fail, Reeve was immediately re-elected!
There is a very small group in SJC that promotes this type of hate. “Hate” being a key word here as that is what is driving this messaging. THESE SAME EXACT PERSONAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS ARE NOT NEW. They were in the form of 2-page flyers distributed door to door in SJC during the elections…not once, but twice. The residents and voters had ample opportunity to review the information and yes, found this approach of attack so off-putting that it resulted in Reeve receiving even more support and votes.
The individuals that posted this run a hate group. There is no focus on the Veteran who served our country and sadly passed away and no honor or respect for his sons or their care. They are instead being callously used by these individuals as pawns and tools for political attack.
Yeah, haters are going to hate.
They are going to hate City Council members who think it’s ok to take advantage of and defraud the VA.
They are going to hate people who run on being for the residents, then become the developers best friend.
They are going to hate people that perpetrate a fraudulent wedding on their friends and neighbors.
They are going to hate people that make the rules, being guilty of breaking them.
Yeah, I hate that too !!
Here’s my understanding: yes, It’s supposed to work for the spouse and the children– but in some respects only until the spouse remarries and loses eligibility. (Usually, this is a case where the deceased veteran is male and the spouse female, so I’m going to use pronouns that fit that example, even though they could be reversed.)
In some respects, this makes sense: we don’t want people marrying widows of veterans just to scam federal funds off of them, which may not go to benefit the widow and children. In other respects, it creates a perverse incentive: if you do remarry, you lose benefits.
Where the law creates perverse incentives, people respond by doing things that don’t make sense except in light of those incentives: such as have ceremonies marking a wedding that isn’t “officially” a wedding because the resulting living arrangement can’t officially be a marriage.
This is also the case where people who have been divorced or widowed can’t afford to remarry because they would lose benefits from former spouses, or from the government when it comes to, say, rental subsidies that help their children. (These are largely based on outdated assumptions that any man a woman might marry will automatically be able to be a breadwinner. Reeve may be a good example of one who can’t.)
I’m of at least two mind about these — as I expect are many others.
(1) On the one hand, it just seems wrong that these benefits will no longer support the widow and children if the man she marries is unable to shoulder the burdens that the state would like to place on him.
(2) On the other hand, this money is coming out of taxpayers’ pockets (and at the expense of other spending priorities). At a minimum, if after a marriage (or even a quasi-marriage), a surviving spouse can provide for the children, it’s hard to argue that they should necessarily be entitled to those benefits.
(3) On the third hand, a law removing that entitlement creates an incentive for a surviving spouse not to marry and create a new blended family — which brings with it benefits for her and the children (having a mate, having a father figure) beyond the merely financial. Making someone choose between love and the money they may need for a decent life is ugly.
(4) On the fourth hand, the rules are the rules. Although, in this case, that cuts both ways. Yes, the rules are that, if one marries, one loses these benefits even if they are the difference between a poor life and a decent one, or for that matter between a decent one and a good one. Too bad for you! On the other hand, if the rules are that only a bona fide marriage ousts one’s interest in those benefits, then arrangements to gain the benefits of a marriage without the legal formality of a marriage are technically permissible.
I feel sorry for people who can’t appreciate both sides of the conundrum. For me, it comes down to this:
– if Reeve is wealthy enough to supplant the role of the state in providing for the widow and children, despite his disability, and is essentially profiteering off of this arrangement, then it’s morally wrong even if not legally wrong.
– If Reeve and the surviving spouse, as alleged, are violating rules that should bar entitlement to those benefits, even if the the money really would serve the sort of purpose (substitution for the money that would have been brought fby the veteran had he not died) for which it is intended, then this is legally wrong even if not otherwise morally wrong.
– Where Reeve and his surviving spouse are not violating the law and not materially violating norms that would apply given the understanding that they are dealing with a system that creates perverse incentives — and I’d include representing themselves informally as married, including getting “wedding” gifts, though not taking advantage of any exceptions to disclosure laws related to such gifts — they I don’t think it’s legally wrong OR morally wrong.
Frankly, we accept enough technically-but-not-substantively-true things in our society, especially involving tax laws (which have turned wealthy people who own a plot of land where they have someone grow a little alfalfa into “farmers” getting benefits intended for actual bona fide farmers that I think that we can allow for a little slack on most of the moral judgments, unless there’s seriously gross profiteering. But if there’s a technical violation that the government wouldn’t forgive, then the people who have filed complaints about Reeve may achieve their goal. I hope that they turn down any bounty.
“The reason a VA borrower isn’t allowed to rent out the property is because of the primary occupancy rule. VA loan rules require the borrower to certify they will use the property as their primary residence. No investment properties or summer homes may be purchased with a VA loan.”
As a widow, or remarried, she never lived in the house. That’s fraud.
Fraud has to be intentional. They would have to prove that she never intended to live in the house, as opposed to later deciding that it was not going to be viable due to changed circumstances. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t. You can probably cite the documentation that proves it to your satisfaction — and you may be right about it — but proving it to your satisfaction isn’t a hard bar to clear.
Mr. Derek’s disabilities do not give him the right to break the law and take advantage of the V.A. system and possible other fraudulent activities. His disabilities sure didn’t stop him from running a dirty campaign with mean spirited campaign flyers and other distorted candidate information. RESIGN REEVE!
@Deserve, @Don Juan; Name calling is never the answer to legitimate questions, it’s just an old, worn-out attempt to silence opposition.
Judging by his/her response, “SJC Lifer” is probably one of Reeve’s developer buddies who stand to lose a vote for their project approvals should Reeve be forced to resign. Getting between a developer and his money seems to invite a lot of the “hate” rhetoric.
I don’t think people should be speculating about each others’ identities here. You’re all outside of my comfort zone as it is.
*San Juan Capistrano is unique. It isn’t Dana Point and it isn’t San Clemente. It has a Ace Hardwar and a very convenient assorted shops including Staples and Big 5 Sporting goods. It has a tremendous Historical Mission, a wonderful El Adobe Restaurant, which we were once the General Manager of – during the ownership of famous Mr. Al Newman and his son Ed back in the 1970’s. The Hispanic 500 have a lot of say and so does Tony Moisio. The history of the Juaeno Indian Tribe…..which also has a strong cultural position. This is one of these places where the Rio District and Restaurant next to the Theater, down the street from Antique Stores…..all in all a really wonderful little town with plenty of diversity and levels of wealth. So, our suggestion is simple: Just leave well enough alone.
I don’t get the sense that you read the story, at least we’ll enough to absorb it. You (given what I recall is your interest in veterans’ issues) should try again.
Now: what follows is not an offer of representation, but other attorneys might be interested. Anyone with knowledge of fraud being committed on the government should be aware of the existence of whistleblower statutes, some of which pay bounties for evidence. The catch is that you DEFINITELY don’t want to put in a false claim about someone else committing fraud, sobthe standard there is even higher than the standard for being able to publish anonymously a strongly negative piece about a politician.
I do not understand why Ron & Anna Winship or anyone else for that matter would want to “Leave well enough alone” when fraudulent politicians misrepresent their positions on hugely important issues like (in many cases) development that is detrimental to day to day living in our community. My vote, as I’m sure many others in SJC, (who don’t stand to profit directly or indirectly from (many times) detrimental development), is almost solely based on ANTI development platforms. It is evident that all city politicians know anti development is a hot topic because ALL of them (some fraudulently) post campaign signs, etc. that state that they are against “The Developers” (who have already bought their votes). Therefore, to be fraudulent on that front is despicable (sadly, I guess that’s what it takes to win elections). Responsibly, I did my homework on the candidates before casting my vote and saw through this fraud in advance. Please do your homework on ALL of the candidates so you can weed out the fraudulent puppets of detrimental development (not all developmentis bad). They only care about themselves, not the “simpletons” beneath them who they claim to represent (in their reality, we’re just a traffic nuisance for them on the roads of our town).
How’d you like them apples?
The post from Ron & Anna Winship suggests that the residents in San Juan ignore the fraud and deceit and “just leave well enough alone”. I disagree. The problem with this attitude is that San Juan is no longer “well enough”, and fraud and deceit should not just be ignored. Remember the old adage, “evil triumphs when good men [/ women] do nothing”? I’m paraphrasing, but the message is powerful.
San Juan is indeed unique. Not for stores like Big 5 or Staples (which are not even really in San Juan but rather on the border of Capo Beach, and which you can find throughout OC). It’s uniqueness is its historic nature, its undeveloped hills (an anomaly in Orange County), and it’s small-town feel, among other wonderful attributes. It’s a town worth fighting for.
Sadly, those of us who moved to San Juan to enjoy these things have watched these attributes rapidly disappearing thanks to over-development. What makes it worse is that council members like Derek Reeve, who promised voters they would protect them from over-development, betrayed their constituents after getting elected by doing exactly the opposite.
The result is gridlock, with more traffic coming thanks to people like Tony Moiso who has used San Juan as a door mat and an ATM to facilitate massive development east of San Juan, and is resulting in the paving over of San Juan. Once the historic nature is gone, it’s gone forever.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that a politician like Reeve betrayed his campaign promises, but I supported Reeve as I really believed he was honest and would fight to protect the town from more shopping malls and more traffic. Now I see that he is nothing more than a liar and a fraud. This, to me, is not ok.
This is a very sad time for San Juan, at least for the residents who love(d) the historic, small-town nature.
@ Sad in San Juan…your comments are right on and express how many of us are feeling right now! It’s time to give this “liar and fraud” the boot! He needs to go ASAP! RESIGN REEVE!!
@ Sad in San Juan…your comments are right on and definitely express how many of us are feeling right now! It’s time for this “liar and fraud” to get the “boot” and be REMOVED from the city council. We don’t need his kind of dirty leadership! He’ll NEVER be able to be trusted! RESIGN REEVE!!
I didn’t know who to vote for so I didn’t vote for anyone. I almost voted for that kid who ran lol.
Big 5 is not in San Juan.
Does it upset you as much as it does me the fraud this guy has perpetuated upon the public?
@ the couple who commented “leave well enough alone”…are you kidding us? The residents of San Juan Capistrano need to send a loud clear message to Derek Reeve, his companion and the city that screams out NO MORE DIRTY council leadership!! Mr. Derek do us all a huge favor and RESIGN immediately! You can NO longer be trusted to “lead” our city!! The proof is in the documentation provided in the article.
*In the words of Shelly Berman: “Oh, your son steals…..well, do not worry Madam – he will either get good at it or get caught.” So, Political wrong doing is in the eye of the beholder. Some people thought that Spiro Agnew just stole the milk money from the school fund…… The truth of course is that he was not willing to go along with Nixon about Watergate. They had to dump him and they did so, unceremoniously. Speaker Wright and a list as long as both arms tells you that people (some people) eventually get caught. What they did to Al Franken is most certainly a travesty of justice. What they did to our dear friend Jim Traficant is also a brutal example of a political hack job done on a noble man of the people. Dan Rostonkowski simply said: “Hey, if my constituents want to throw me out for buying my grandson a graduation present…then so be it.” The Post money, the nightmare called the Saving and Loan Subtle Six…..and so it goes. As our dear friend Eddie Rose might say: “Small potatoes!” Or was that Hyman Roth…..we forget. Remember dear friends, “:One man’s elected skullduggery is another man’s/persons/woman perk!”
By the way, we guess Big 5 is actually in Capo Beach…..is that right? We do know it is next door – several doors to be sure from Costco!
Almost all the candidates were bad. I almost voted for that kid lol. I decided not to vote.
Simply disgusting behavior from anyone, yet alone from a City Leader and his “family”!
Typical San Juan Capistrano. Just ask The Woman’s Club of San Juan Capistrano.
The club was founded in 1921 by Mrs. Guy Williams (nee Catherine Bathgate). The other Charter members were; Mrs. H.S. Barnes, Mrs. W.J. Callis, Mrs. C. Russell Cook, Mrs. Fay Cook, Mrs. C.C. Crookshank, Mrs. C.E. Crumrine, Mrs. H. Raymond Henry, Mrs Mart Hubbard, Mrs. O.J. Guilbert, Mrs. Dan McHenry, Mrs. J.S. Malcolm, Mrs. Lucy Madden, Mrs. Nellie M. Shaw, Mrs. Robert Scott, Mrs. J. Roy Smith. Anyone from SJC that has been here since before the Freeway was built will recognize these names.
The Club purchased their property at 31442 El Horno St., in March of 1934. They built their clubhouse in 1959. The Annual Swallows Day Parade Pancake Breakfast was begun by a member of the club and was held at The Woman’s Club of SJC clubhouse from 1960-2017.
The Woman’s Club of San Juan Capistrano served SJC for 97 years. The Club will continue and will celebrate their 98th Anniversary on March 16, 2019.
The Club has been fighting with the City since July of 2015 over the zoning of their Private Property. In 2002 the City changed the zoning of the Woman’s Club private property to Public/Institutional. The City did this without any notification to the Club either before or after this VALUE ANNIHILATING was done.
Legal Experts call this Inverse Condemnation, Down Zoning and Spot Zoning. The State of California requires that individually affected property owners MUST be notified by direct mail prior to a zoning change. The Woman’s Club was not notified, EVER.
The above is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution.
The majority of the current members of The Woman’s Club of San Juan Capistrano range in age from mid 80’s to 102 years old. They could no longer keep working to raise the funds to continue to maintain their property. The decision to sell their, 2,900 square foot building on their 17,000 square foot lot was the only solution.
The Woman’s Club did everything in their power to get the City to change the zoning so that they could sell their property for what it is really worth. The City would not, told them that they, the City does not spot zone. Really? Two weeks after a meeting with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Financial Director, Development Service Director; The Assistant City Manager was quoted in the Capistrano Dispatch that CUSD wanted a zoning change from Public Institutional to Residential so that they may sell the property they have an Opiton to purchase in order to sell to a Developer for 11 MILLION DOLLARS. The Assistant City Manager said, the change in the zoning would SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
Yet 2 weeks earlier in a meeting with The Woman’s Club of San Juan Capistrano, the Assistant City Manager, and the City Manager told 4 representatives of The Woman’s Club “what difference does it make? Changing the zoning is the Buyer’s problem. We cannot wave a magic wand for you”. Evidently they can wave a magic wand for certain Developers and CUSD.
Due to the value annihilating zoning. The Woman’s Club of SJC is forced to accept, literally, approximately a whole $1,000.00 one thousand dollars per year for the last 84 years for a 2,900 square foot building on a 17,000 square foot lot in the Historic District.
Derek Reeve of course is only one the Council Members that refused to lift one finger to help The Woman’s Club.
Typical San Juan Capistrano, a long history of horse thieves, cattle rustlers and land grabbers.
I was present at the Reeve’s false wedding. In fact, I gave Derek a $50 in cash as a wedding present. Reeve signed a financial disclosure Form 700 declaring that the $50 was indeed a wedding present. The total amount of wedding gifts from all guests amounted to a $2,316.
The intentional false disclosure could be perjury under the laws of the State of California as stated in the Filer’s Verification box of the Form 700 signed by Derek Reeve on 03/23/2012.
Did you know that the wedding was false at the time? If so, why did you give him money?
Who was it that officiated at this phony wedding? Isn’t participating in a fraud against the law, especially since the aggregated $ amount adds up to a felony.
The “officiating” individual was SJC resident Tony Brown…
In reviewing the myriad of attachments, it’s hard to argue that this story isn’t factually true. While I’m always sure there’s “another side” to the story…one HAS to wonder how, exactly, Derek could justify this kind of action. Worse yet, for someone in a protected class (Disabled) to steal benefits from those in another protected class (Veteran) goes beyond the pale!
I hold elected officials to a higher (not lower) standard – and this sort of shenanigans makes me mad! So, (assuming this is true) is there no recourse? Does a Veteran’s family not get a home, because a non-Veteran is gaming the system? Are all the political checks and balances really without teeth, allowing actions like this to occur without fear of reprisal?
@ Councilman Mark Speros…thank you for having the courage and decency to speak up regarding this troubling Mr. Reeve issue. I hope the rest of the city council and city government will follow with their condemnation of the Reeves. Yes, the documentation is certainly an eye opener in revealing their possible negative actions. I think about all our military men and women who truly deserve and depend on these benefits. Then individuals like the reeves come along and ABUSE them!! Where do they get off doing something like this?? They both owe all San Juan residents and especially all our military a huge apology! Let’s see if we hear anything from any of the other city councilmen? RESIGN REEVE! Your bad choices and actions are an embarrassment to San Juan Capistrano! You are no longer a councilman who we can trust or respect!
Deliberately added the councilman title…maybe you can fill the seat that Reeve will hopefully very soon vacate!! RESIGN REEVE!
It seems to me that they owe more than just an apology; how about Ragsdale pay back the $235,000 dishonest profit she made off the backs of the taxpayers and truly deserving vets who actually need a home to live in (which is what the VA loan terms require)?
I have filed a complaint with the Veteran’s Administration Office of the Inspector General, and will file one with the FBI. I hope that others do as well. Maybe if they hear from enough of us veterans supporters and taxpayers, they will investigate this. The links to file on-line complaints are:
Veterans Administration, Office of Inspector General:
https://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/
FBI (which investigates federal loan fraud, which is what this is):
https://tips.fbi.gov
I’m really disappointed in Derek. I supported him and passed out flyers for his campaign when he first ran. I have watched him slowly go to the dark side, voting with Council members who were and are in the pockets of the builders. San Juan Capistrano is a decrepit city with failing infrastructure. It has a $25 million riding park boondoggle bringing in millions for the Blenheim family renters while the locals have limited use of and access to it (tax money now paying for water and sewer lines to be put there for the Blenheim company ♀️). San Juan can’t even afford welcome signs coming into the city. Instead there are major tall weeds welcoming everyone along Ortega. San Juan reminds me of an old town in the boonies of Texas run to the ground by the good old boys. Now, to bring in more tax dollars to waste and cover their a**es, the council approved a shopping center in the city, despite the fact that it already takes 45 minutes sitting in major traffic to get two miles through the city and it ruins the ambiance of the Mission area. Thanks, Derek and your new friends, for making San Juan less desirable.
Greg
We all thought it was a real wedding with a bridal dress and vows before what we thought was a real minister. I even took videos and shared the file with Derek.
John, a wedding is what you experienced and that is two people expressing their love and commitment before their friends and family— the minister part and the legal certificate from the County are other issues. I can appreciate their “wedding”, as my combat veteran husband and I call each other husband/wife without having the County or God’s permission, technically. Having said that, however, what an absolute disgrace to our system and to our veteran families who have to fight really hard to earn AND to access these benefits… She is a thief and he is her accomplice. My heart hurts for her deceased husband whom she has utterly exploited and to her children for her lack of integrity and values.
This isn’t about judging people for choosing a symbolic marriage over a legal one. It’s about the deceit behind this particular one. Now that this loan fraud issue has come to light, it seems obvious WHY they didn’t actually marry – Ragsdale would have to give up too much in the way of taxpayer-funded benefits. Which makes this wedding sham even worse.
Reeve and Ragsdale misled everyone into believing that they were getting legally married. Friends hosted a wedding shower, a wedding ceremony and reception, and gave them gifts totaling thousands of dollars because they believed that they were getting legally married.
Now, maybe those people would have done all that for them anyway, but Reeve and Ragsdale didn’t give them the opportunity. Reeve and Ragsdale lied about it, not only to their friends but to the public. They even placed an announcement in the local paper about it for pete’s sake.
I assume that you did not do any of these deceitful things, Claire.
*OK, here is a thought balloon for you….Governor Ralph Northam is being asked to step down because of the a college photo of him going to costume party in Black Face. What year was that again? Anyway, he missed the opportunity to simply say he wanted to go to the party as Al Jolson………..but he didn’t put the white grease paint around his mouth. Then he said he wanted to go as Michael Jackson……before? Good grief, “It was me…it was not me…..it was …oh hell….Blame it on the Bossa Nova!” Pretty embarrassing. So, it kind of goes like this: The people of Alabama voted for Doug Jones rather than the racist alternative. Former Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe said he should resign….that’s good enough for us.
Take this to the Weekend Open Thread, Ron. Or, I may post a story about this. Either way, it’s off-topic here.
Mortgage fraud is a pretty rotten thing to do, but doing it to the Veterans Administration is especially despicable.
Very un-American !
Sick of dishonesty – here are sites to file your complaints on Reeves. Lets hold our top City people accountable!
Link to the documents on the City’s website:
https://sjc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1859&meta_id=110555
Link to file a complaint to the FBI:
https://tips.fbi.gov
Link to file a complaint with the Veterans Administration, Office of Inspector General:
https://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/
Link to file a complaint with the State Bar of California:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Complaints-Claims
I read this article when it came out a couple of days ago, and wondered how the city as a whole would react to this story. Whoever wrote it seems to have lived here a long time, and has their facts straight. The links to the documents are pretty clear that Reeve told us that he was married, and the signed papers say that he isn’t. The documents tell us that he participated in a fraud on both the VA, and the residents of San Juan.
You’ve had months to respond to this. Tell us Derek, are you married or not ?You, at a minimum, owe that to the City that elected you.
… AND owe the taxpayers $235,000 that your faux wife obtained through a fraudulent VA loan!
[Nothing in the following is intended as personal legal advice or as an invitation to establish an attorney client relationship.]
Having had some time to think this through, I have a sense of what I think that Reeve would probably say: that no, he is not married, because the government regulations would punish his quasi-wife for being married, but that he is married in his own heart and in the eyes of God, or something like that.
This sort of approach might save his quasi-wife from charges of defrauding the government — or it might not. I’m way outside of my wheelhouse in discussing these sorts of things, but I think that the analysis would go something like this.
(1) If the marriage is not recorded by the state, they’re not married as a matter of statutory law.
(1A) One implication of this is that they have no “spousal privilege” — that is, he can be forced to testify her in court, and vice-versa.
(1B) Except that he would probably claim an attorney-client privilege instead — and it would probably be challenged.
(2) There may be a good argument, though, that he and his quasi-wife are married by operation of common law. It’s been years since I had to look this up for the California Bar Exam, but I think that if they are cohabiting for a certain amount of time and represent themselves to the world as being married, then they are married by common law (i.e., precedent-based “judge-made” over the centuries not grounded in other government enactments).
(3) The main question would then be whether the VA considers marriage by common law, as opposed by statutory procedure, sufficient to disqualify a surviving spouse from receiving benefits through the VA. Maybe, maybe not — and I could readily believe that it does not, because this sort of common law marriage by surviving spouses if probably not uncommon and as a policy matter they may not want to further harm surviving spouses of deceased vets. So while it seems like fraud, it’s possible that it wouldn’t be treated like fraud as regards the VA.
(4) Is it fraud *otherwise*? If so, we can divide it into four categories: (a) the wedding guests; (b) the voting public; (c) the IRS, CA state income tax agency, and other government agencies; and (d) everyone else.
(4A) The wedding guests may have been defrauded without much damage; “wedding” and “marriage” are usually used in a formal sense but can also be used in an informal sense — “common law marriage” is sort of an example of that — and I suppose that the wedding guests could have asked “hey, is this is REAL STATUTORY MARRIAGE or is it just something like a ‘commitment ceremony’?” if they had really cared that much. (My ex-wife and I attended the “wedding” of a lesbian couple back in 1989 or so — the scare quotes are because it was of course not legally recognized as such back in those days — and we treated it as one, spent money on a gift, and would not say that we had been in any way “defrauded.”) Aside from the costs of gifts — which it could be argued were set off by the meal and enjoyment of the party as well as the chance to celebrate the couple — there would be no damages for fraud other than “emotional ones,” which is to say “no damages.” So there’s no legal trouble there — although reputational trouble aplenty.
(4B) Reeve could have been challenged about any statements of his, as part of a campaign, as to his being married — but it’s far too late to do so now and the statements could have been defended if he was claiming “only” a common-law marriage anyway.
(4C) This is where it could get dicey for Reeve: has the couple been filing as married and treating assets as community property without being legally entitled to do so? Release your tax returns, Mr. Councilman! The other wrinkle might be that there may be an exception to a “gifts” policy for public officials for gifts received at their wedding receptions — Scamster Mike Huckabee supposedly took advantage of this when he was governor of Arkansas, for a “renewal of vows” ceremony! — that would have allowed him to get gifts that would otherwise be considered bribes. The FPPC window on this, if Reeve in fact got gifts and didn’t report them — if California has such a loophole at all, which I’m not going to look up — may not yet be entirely closed.
Seems like you missed the main legal points in the article.
VA loans are only for primary residences, not for rentals or second homes. They have to be owner occupied. The property was immediately rented out, and then sold for a substantial profit soon after. That is fraud.
Reeve put Ragsdale on title to his property using an Inter-Family Transfer. If they’re not married, they aren’t in the same family.
Filing a 760 claiming “wedding presents” when you didn’t have a wedding is not truthful.
Quit eating jelly beans with the Winships. Theirs have little numbers on them.
“Theirs have little numbers on them.”
For the win.
From context, I think that you mean “Intra-family Transfer,” rather than “Inter,” right?
Fraud has to be intentional. Let’s say that you take out such a loan, occupy the house for a week — yes, I see where you say that that didn’t happen, but how do you know and how should I know that you do know? — and then move into a house with someone else whom you decided to marry or quasi-marry or whatever makes the story work. OF COURSE, you would argue, you then have to either sell or rent out the house! Can the government show that you intentionally planned to violate the rules? Maybe, maybe not — and if not, then while it may still be a violation (and perhaps penalized to some degree, it might not be found to be fraud.
I can think of one way that they could have gotten around that intra-family transfer thing, because it was a trick that gay men (probably lesbians as well, I just haven’t heard about that) used to use back in the day: adoption. The older one with more assets would adopt the younger, which would make the younger able to inherit even in the absence of marriage. Now, I wonder if by adopting one of her children he could then be in a position to make an inter-family transfer to her. Do you know for certain that they can’t?
Congratulations on amusing Zenger — though if it’s snotty and mean that’s not much of an accomplishment — but the sort of devil’s advocacy I’m engaged in here really is the sort of figuring out ways to weasel around regulations that attorneys pursue — and also how to anticipate the weaseling that one’s opponent might do, because that’s something for which one wishes to prepare. (None of what I’ve suggested above is as complicated and absurd as some of what passes muster in tax law.) As I already said, using wedding colloquially for something that is not technically a legal wedding is not even nearly unprecedented. (I gave an example of one I’ve been to.) If he had told people “look, we can’t have an actual legal wedding because my “fiancee” would lose the benefits she deserves from all of the years she spent with her heroic husband, and being disabled myself I can’t make it up to her, but we still want to go through the motions and experience the joy as a community of friends that I think that she and I deserve, so let’s not worry about what paper gets filed and let’s have what looks like a wedding to celebrate our love and if you want to bring presents we will certainly appreciate them and write you thank you notes, because this is probably as close to a wedding as the two of us will ever be able to have” — do you really think that he wouldn’t have gotten a bunch of gifts? Yes, that would have been more truthful, but in law we’re taught to look for the damage in a misrepresentation. Now if he took advantage of a statute where the presents at an actual legal wedding receive favored treatment, that would be a problem for him.
(For the record, I feel that you could make a better care for the latter two argumentS than for the first (“I just changed my mind!”) one. But if you can come up with evidence or arguments to knock down the barriers I’m tossing up there, your case will be stronger. Learn to love jellybeans.)
I think you overlooked one major point; that a VA loan is to be used to purchase a primary residence, not rental property. That is why the VA requires that the borrower must occupy the residence within (I think 90) days, and must live in the residence for a minimum of one year. According to the documents, Ragsdale did neither.
Reeve had added Ragsdale to the title of his home, which had been her primary residence since 2010, about 10 months prior to her buying the rental property with the no-down, low cost VA loan. So she already owned a home, and never lived in the house she purchased with federal monies. Instead, she rented it out within about 60 days, then sold it for a huge profit two years later.
Also, according to Bohm Wildish & Matsen LLP, a law firm specializing in divorce/family law, “There is no common law marriage recognized in the state of California. Under certain situations, non-marital partners may have the right to bring a claim for ‘Palimony’, or what is known as a Marvin Claim, to court, but that is something completely different than a common marriage…”
As I say in the post I just made (I’m going through these comment in order of their posting), I think that what you raise here is the hardest thing to explain away. (Note: I’m also not reviewing the underlying documents — not without getting paid — so I don’t know if there’s a way around them.)
I don’t do real estate law either, so I don’t know if there’s a way to add someone to a title in a way that’s sufficiently subordinated or contingent that it would not violate the VA loan regulations. (Nor do I plan to find out.) It seems likely that your conclusion that “so she already owned a home” is correct, but I don’t know whether any court cases or judges’ previous rulings suggest that at least in this circumstance being placed on a title (largely, we may suppose, for ensuring inheritance) doesn’t invoke the proscription against already owning a home. I’ve seen weirder things pass muster in court or administrative agencies.
You may not want to knock down all of my devil’s advocate ideas, because if you leave up one with a hole in it and Reeve latches onto to that leaky boat, that would sink him! I’ll be interested in seeing what he argues in the face of these complaints. I would bet that it would be largely a matter of pathos — him being profoundly disabled and her being a widow of a veteran who are only kept from marriage and happiness by the damnable rules — and I would not bet large against that gambit succeeding.
So you don’t do real estate law, you don’t know family law, you haven’t read the documents, you’re recovering (?) from a stroke, and you are up at 2 in the morning banging away on the keyboard putting out this confused opinion ?
Are we supposed to take what you write seriously ?
And you’re hiding your identity. I’m supposed to take *you* seriously?
My ability to engage in the process of legal analysis, given the right inputs, and my ability to spot the inputs that I would need are both fine.
My interest here is trying to judge whether and where you have made your case. Sometimes it’s a “yes” or “no”; often it’s a “it would depend on other substantive law that I don’t know, because only non-lawyers and idiots think that having a law degree means that one knows more than a small fraction of the substantive law there is to know in our own legal system, let alone in others.”
What I’m trying to do here is to test out — and I’m absolutely spitballing, and lawyers often do, especially when no one’s paying us to do otherwise — the sorts of defenses that Reeve might be inclined to raise to the charges made against him and his “mate.” If you don’t find it useful, don’t read it. If you think that you should be able to use this blog to make whatever sorts of anonymous attacks you want, without regard to how well-taken then are, think again.
I’m frankly ambivalent about this post remaining up in its present form. Vern considers it “well-documented,” and there’s an argument to be made for that, but it’s not necessarily as well-documented as you in your apparently ignorant bliss would like to believe. If you’d like to submit your name to me (or to Vern) so that we’ll know to whom I should refer any demand letter calling for a takedown, should one come, then the chances of it staying up longer would be increased.
Now, do you have the guts to do that, or does your plan to alert the public about what Reeve has done depend on someone else taking the legal responsibility for any defamation — which I’M trying to ward off by publicly doing this sort of analysis — depending on someone ELSE taking the heat? Keep on being this sort of asshole and you make the question of whether Vern and I should want to stand by this reporting much easier.
@ diamond…would you do us a favor and “lose” the negative foul language!?
You mean the word “asshole”? No, if the post in question was created by one of your various identities, you can wear it. Be strong.
Are the other members of the City Council going to address these serious charges against Councilman Reeve tonight at the Council Meeting? Mr Reeve has not been found guilty and should have the opportunity to explain these serious allegations.
That being said, I find it despicable that anyone should profit by using a VA loan that they are not entitled to. Access to the commissary, PX and a VA loan is a privilege that military personnel and their families earn for service to our country. I hope that Mr. Reeve does not use his power or position on the City Council to retaliate against “Home Front America”.
In my opinion this controversy, by one council member, will damage the reputation of the entire city if it is not addressed immediately.
This is some pretty egregious stuff. I wonder if the council will act on it.
Documents are pretty straightforward. Google Derek Reeve and you will find a pattern; sued by creditors, bankruptcy, fired for plagiarism. As an elected official, he joked about naming his dog “Mohammed” from the dais of a council meeting, which offended the Muslim community (including a city staff member who was Muslim) and earned nationwide condemnation. To this day, he has refused to apologize.
From college student to attorney, college professor to councilman and real estate broker; to say he should know better is putting it lightly. How many oaths and pledges has he taken to uphold the law as an attorney, broker, and 3rd term city councilman? Doesn’t matter though; this guy Reeve is a master of playing on peoples’ sympathies, using his disability to deflect any criticism. The result is he gets away with behavior and actions like what we see reflected in the documents posted here. Looks like his fake wife is a perfect match for him, accumulating money and land from her elderly deceased former veteran husband while defrauding the VA (no doubt in my mind, with Reeve’s tutelage).
Burning questions are; what will the VA, City of SJC, FBI and private schools J Serra Catholic High School and Saddleback Valley Christian School (where Ragsdale reportedly got free tuition by pleading poverty) do about Derek Reeve and Jocelyn Ragsdale? I reported them at the following links: Veterans Administration: https://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/default.asp and FBI: https://tips.fbi.gov . I hope everyone does the same so that this guy and his fake wife are finally held accountable. I encourage people to contact the boards of those private schools too; how many truly low-income families were denied tuition assistance because of people like Ragsdale, who owned two homes and pocketed a $235,000 profit thanks to a fraudulently obtained VA loan?
I choose to remain anonymous because Reeve is angry and ruthless; just take a look at the “anonymous” tabloid (no masthead, editor or publisher listed) the “San Juan Scoop” that he publishes with developer friend Steve Oedekerk. Working together with developers Troy Bourne (just elected to city council) and Dan Almquist (who wants to build a mall and 300 parking spaces in Los Rios, the oldest neighborhood in California), these guys are hell bent on paving over history in San Juan. They have deep pockets and attorneys to intimidate, and use the anonymous tabloid to attack ‘lowly residents’ who dare to oppose their massive development schemes.
What you mention in the first paragraph is a collection of good reasons to dislike the man. But there’a also a good reason that all of it would likely be excluded from evidence at trial (or in some cases admitted only as it respects his credibility as a witness, with one of those admonitions to jurors that makes a mistrial very possible an appeal very likely.
Your willingness to see us here face his attorneys’ wrath, but not to do so yourself, is duly noted.
Please pick and name and stick with it. In fact, I’ll pick one for you: this one. Stick with it.
Greg, you express concern about this issue somehow splashing back on you and/or the OJ Blog, but the commenters here are offering their opinion on documentation already submitted publicly. Don’t know if you saw the video(s) in this post of SJC residents addressing the city council, but they submitted the documentation posted on this blog to the city council, city attorney, city clerk and city manager. It’s hardly “anonymous”; it’s a matter of public record.
This blog is merely posting what was already out in the public eye. Don’t know how that jeopardizes you or the blog? It’s not as though you are making stuff up about Reeve or Ragsdale.
As far as what a court would do; that’s up to the investigating agencies, should they decide to take it up. We’ll see.
According to this blog DA Spitzer is going to stamp out corruption. Make a complaint to him.
Is this within the DA’s jurisdiction? Would the SOL would have already passed for a fraud charge?
Forms for gifts rec’d for your “wedding” that are signed under PERJURY and best of your knowledge are serious. This is called FRAUD. How can you justify that Derek? You need to humble yourself and step down AND need to be honest with San Juan as you call yourself a “Christian”. We deserve honest answers and are not getting them……WHY? I can say that other former Council people would NEVER have gotten away with that, not for a moment.
Maybe city government won’t demand answers from Mr.Derek but, “We the People sure want answers from him! The citizens of SJC should not let this serious issue be forgotten! RESIGN REEVE!
Has anyone seen the most recent “next door”? Especially the interesting comment response from Donna Fleming. Makes one ask what’s really going on here and what is the true story. It’s getting somewhat concerning and troubling. Fleming comments really take this Reeve and Ragsdale issue to a whole other level. Please read and draw your own conclusions.
This has been going around for a while. Who cares it’s Derek’s life leave him alone vote him out in four years. You guys shouldn’t recall him that’s stupid. Anyways he won in a landslide your not going to get enough people to do so. Just leave Derek alone it’s his personal business!
Derek got 38% of the vote in his district. You call that a landslide ?
Helping to defraud the VA ? You’re ok with that ?
2 Stop: It wasn’t anywhere near a landslide. Here are the election results:
Derek Reeve: 1,207 votes
Pam Patterson: 677
Kerry Ferguson: 624
Cody Martin: 388
Joyce Anderson: 275
If either Patterson or Ferguson had not split the vote, Reeve would not have won. For that matter, if Cody Martin and Joyce Anderson had not siphoned votes, either Patterson or Ferguson would likely have won.
That’s hardly the definition of landslide.
I have never even heard of those last two people all I know is that I remember hearing from people that Derek got a lot of votes which seems to be the case. There’s no proof that those people who voted for Joyce and Cody wouldn’t have voted for Derek. All I’m saying is first Derek won fair and square. Second you shouldn’t recall someone unless they have seriously done something wrong. Third even if you wanted to recall Derek which is still wrong your not going to get enough people to do it.
As I’ve said, I’m not entirely convinced — but there’s no question that the people proposing this seriously think that he has done something wrong enough to warrant a recall. I’d have thought that that was pretty obvious.
No, it’s not ok to defraud the government, or to stick taxpayers with the tab for your education expenses, or to offend Muslims by naming your dog Mohammed then laughing about it on the dais and refusing to apologize, or to lie to your constituents by having a wedding and claiming you are married when you clearly are not, or to refuse to return gifts given to you for the marriage you knew was fake, or to betray your constituents by claiming you will protect them from traffic and development then once elected, do just the opposite, etc etc.
I remain hopeful that at least some of the fraud will be addressed by the proper authorities, now that complaints are being filed.
I’ve never said it’s okay. I don’t know the facts. I have a problem with trying to circumvent the Democratic process. He got 1,200 votes, obviously lots of people like him. But we can’t just go around recalling people for no reason. It sets a bad precedent. I’m not saying what he’s doing is right I’m just saying it’s his business.
Did you read the facts in the article ? They are notarized, recorded documents. Go back and click on the links. Most of them are easy reading one page docs.
It’s pretty clear that they pulled a fast one on the VA, and neither one of them ever served a day in the military.
We didn’t have one good choices. We just need to encourage good people to run next time. We gotta ride these four years out and get good people to step up in 4 years.
In 4 years the town will be even more over-developed, with even more traffic, and the oldest neighborhood in California will be forever changed by a mall development with 300 parking spaces in the already-gridlocked downtown Camino Cap/Del Obispo area. 4 years matters.
But that’s what you get when you vote for lying politicians who betray naive voters by promising to protect the town from over-development, while financing their campaign with developer dollars.
I agree with stop. I was going to support Cody Martin but then I found out he’s actually Republican.
What should really bother you about Cody Martin, besides his naivety, is that he wholeheartedly supports Derek Reeve.
Cody doesn’t seem to be a good judge of character.
Who cares what he (Rep/Dem) as long as he is honest and upright and can fulfill his job as a honest Council person. That seems to be the problem here in this City.
Definitely I agree. I flat out just didn’t vote for anyone and I almost voted for Cody but he’s a Republican and doesn’t have the experience.
SJC Lifer,
In my opinion Reeve through his actions has taught this community that while promoting himself as a Constitutional Scholar, attorney, professor and family man NONE OF IT WAS TRUE. Yet some are saying Reeve’s actions should be excused because of his disability and call those who don’t agree names like hater, unwilling to discuss the facts but would rather attempt to bully people into silence. This is how I see it:
Reeve assists Ragsdale in defrauding the VA – Reeve threatens a charitable organization with his power as a councilman, when his constituents question him about it, he ignores them.
Reeves and Ragsdales boys receive free tuition at private schools that Reeve failed to note on 760 forms , the information would have prevented him from voting on the schools behalf. Quid pro quos .
Staging Marriage and pretending to be a father/husband taught false representation is acceptable to influence one’s personal agenda/political ambitions.
College Students he taught while claiming to be a Constitutional Scholar, that you can commit plagiarism repeatedly until if and when you get caught.
Saddleback Valley Comm College taught the students that honor and integrity was of the highest standards and fired Reeve. The fact that he was disabled was not of any circumstance to them.
Muslim Community he mocked from his council position by joking his dog was named Mohammed, taught division and intolerance. He refused to apologize.
Defaulting on Student Loan and Creditors Reeve taught you can borrow money with promise to pay it back yet file bankruptcy and get sued by creditors and feign its not his fault because he is disabled.
How many disabled veterans of war or for that matter any disabled people, live their life by the rules Reeve does….In the face of adversity, conflict, and personal tragedy lie steal and cheat and anyone who calls you on it call them names?
SJC Lifer–your post sounds exactly like the people at coffee chat and the SCOOP Paper that Reeve and Oedekerk publish. Curious, Is it true that developer Dan Almquist is helping to fund it?
@ SJC Resident…you are very right on with everything you’ve said!! BTW, name calling and bullying will never silence me! RESIGN REEVE!
Turns my stomach to see Reeve sitting with the rest of the city council and conducting city business. Many no longer trust or recognize his “leadership”. RESIGN REEVE!
SJC Resident, thank you for the compliment. From what I’ve seen the Coffee Chat crowd is a large and ever-growing group of SJC Residents that may have differences but get together and share ideas in a civil, open and ethical forum where anyone can speak. Imagine that. Many have lived in San Juan for 50 years plus.
This post poses to have appreciation for Veterans, while having no concern over the actual deceased Veteran and his two sons and widow continually referenced. The Reeve bashing is a re-hash started years ago, I believe, by Dave Ellis.
The current City Council seems to be getting along great, with mutual respect and smooth, professional City Council meetings. What a big change. You should attend one and check it out. San Juan is full of awesome residents and is on a great track, I’ll leave the anger and bashing to you.
“Getting along” and “mutual respect, smooth professional city council meetings”…that’s a first!
By the way, SJC residents certainly have the right to be angry at Mr. Derek and his “partner”. Save your critisms for those two individuals!
“Coffee chat” in San Juan used to be a respectful, unbiased exchange of information and ideas. It was started by Jonathan Volzke, former publisher/editor of a local paper. But Volzke sold the paper and left a number of years ago when he accepted a position outside of San Juan, and “coffee chat” began a downhill slide.
It eventually was taken over by an agenda-driven group of developers, wanna-be developers and their supporters, who along with their handful of supporters, have a nasty habit of attacking those who disagree with their collective viewpoint.
I dropped by to see if it was still as dreadful as the last meeting I had attended many months ago. It was. In addition to the few (literally, maybe 3 or 4) vocal Reeve/developer supporters, it was pretty much the same 30 people in attendance; mostly nice, quiet retired folks. I assume that the retired residents are the only ones who have time on their hands to attend the week-day morning “coffee chat” since they are no longer tied down by jobs, school and/or small children.
As for the current city council, all one needs to do is read the tabloid Reeve and his developer buddies put out, “The San Juan Scoop”, to see how “civil” and “ethical” they are. They trash anyone who questions their actions or points out how negatively their developments will impact the community (much like Reeve does from the dais when addressed by residents whose comments he doesn’t like).
As for being “open”; they try to hide their involvement in “The Scoop” by listing no editor or publisher; it’s hardly open or transparent. I guess even they are embarrassed by how childishly anyone who disagrees with them is trashed. Their “articles” (I use the word loosely) are thinly disguised personal attacks that sound as if they were written by angry 6th graders (no offense to 6th graders ;>).
San Juan residents will now have many more hours to contemplate this new “leadership” as they sit in growing levels of gridlocked traffic created by this “ethical and civil” new council majority.
Found your points interesting so just went online to the San Juan scoop page and after clicking around a bit, found the articles not only have author’s listed but also some I know to be reputable long time residents of SJC. Not sure how that equals “hiding.”
Maybe there is an overall discomfort from those in the shadows whose actions are being brought out into the light. Seems to make sense being many of the preceding posts are acting like the articles don’t have listed authors.
The individuals and authors are often never mentioned. There’s an air of secrecy with that publication and the individuals connected with it. However, let’s stay focused here and on track. This is ALL about Derek Reeve, his so called “partner” and what very much appears to be their possible criminal activity! RESIGN REEVE!
I believe that my City deserves leaders that can be trusted to uphold the law despite special circumstances. How can anyone associated with, or trust someone who makes decisions, that may be less than honest, just because it benefits his household and children? If true. were decisions Councilman Reeve made, in regard to the schools his children attend, best for the city or for his family? As a member of the community I have concerns about Councilman Reeve being able to separate his personal gain from decisions for my City.
Scoop and SJCELECTIONS.ORG orchestrated some of the most divisive and nasty items of the entire election so what did Mr Reeve expect? With the election behind us we are just supposed to say “Oh well, even if it is true, we should just look the other way because he won”? Apparently, those that used to work with him on his previous campaigns know personal information like this and he knows it, otherwise why doesn’t he just claim slander?
As an attorney, teacher and Councilman Mr Reeve has taken oaths to uphold the law. I could care less if he is married or not. That is between them. But the community believed he was married and therefore if someone claims your spouse is involved in VA loan fraud wouldn’t you offer some sort of explanation? If your wife or significant other received a VA loan. then you both benefited from the sale after renting it out and you are commingling the money, then these accusations about her are his own fault. Also, Councilman Reeve sent as accusing email to someone the City has a relationship with. The dirty flyer during election season would have been old news if Mr Reeve hadn’t involved the City with his email.
The potential that Councilman Reeve was a party to a felony should be enough for the City to require investigation or at least an explanation and the citizens should be informed of the outcome.
@ the Swallows…Do you have any new updates regarding this story? You stated you would be “providing any new updates” and I haven’t noticed any recent additions.
This is his personal life who cares let him be
Who cares ?
The FPPC just opened an investigation into Derek Reeve, Steve Oedekerk, and their beloved publication the Scoop.
Again… who cares? Nothing is going to happen. This is his personal life leave him alone.
He made his personal life very public when he invited public officials to his sham wedding.
In his public life he likes to lecture everyone how they must follow the law.
He’s a hypocrite who has helped defraud the VA, a public government entity.
People that do care are real Veterans who served in the military.
Why would you defend that kind of behavior ?
@who cares… I care because it’s a taxpayer-funded loan that required no down payment and at a very low interest rate because Ragsdale used her deceased husband’s Veterans Administration benefits (the real husband, not fake husband Derek Reeve). It wasn’t her and Reeve’s money – it was OURS. That’s not personal, it’s public abuse of tax dollars.
The loan Ragsdale got is prohibited by the VA loan terms which are clearly stated on the document she signed; VA loans are intended to assist truly deserving veterans in buying a PRIMARY RESIDENCE, not to buy an investment property; that’s why the loan terms require that the buyer occupy the residence for at least a year.
This federal loan fraud generated a personal profit of $235,000 on the back of the taxpayers. It needs to be paid back!
I’m not defending his behavior I’m saying it doesn’t affect us. Let the investigation go through and we will see what happens. He deserves due process.
You’re saying it doesn’t affect YOU, so “who cares.”
What about the actual Veterans who’s ability to get a home loan is diminished because some liars like Reeve and family are scamming the system ?
Try thinking outside your own little world.
I’m not just thinking about me. If the allegations are true he should get in trouble, if they are not true he should be fine. What I’m saying is let the investigation go through and then judge him.
@ Who Cares…WE care!!! RESIGN REEVE!
You are falling into the rule of mob mentality. I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, I am saying let the process go through and reserve judgment until then. We are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Let it go.
I think one problem is there’s no certainty there’s any damn “process” taking place. There sure wouldn’t be if this story hadn’t been published.
Process? Vern, you wanted Spitzer. He’s the Process man.
Ugh, the word always reminds me of the never-ending peace process in the Middle East. Also, bad cheese.
Zenger will never stop whining when he doesn’t get his way, will he?
I care that Reeve has voted for jserra when I live next door to their sports facilities and am negatively affected by his votes. How can this be ok when those boys he claims as his children are going to school for free? I care when my husband is a veteran and we would never even think of buying a home with a va loan and renting it out against the terms. We could sure use $230,000 profit. Anyone cheating veterans is as bad as it gets.
Here is the FPPC response (click for larger image)
OMG!!! Here we go again with even more possible dirt involving the one and only Mr. Derek. He’s one busy individual and seems to always be up to some sort of mischief!! RESIGN REEVE!
Mayor Brian Maryott has announced he is running for Congress because Levin has done such a terrible job already, yet Maryott says nothing about Reeve his fellow Republican. Reeve- plagiarism, perjury, fraud, and now State of California FPPC is investigating him! Maryott can’t even take care of his own backyard.
@SJc Resident…thanks for bringing this up. Many SJC residents will be keeping a close eye on how Maryott and the rest of the council handle this Mr. Derek problem. They’ve done absolutely nothing yet! If Maryott does nothing I can assure you that he’ll be getting a nothing response vote from us. If he wants a congressional seat then he can start by proving himself in his own community by dealing with this Mr. Derek issue! That goes for the rest of the council too! It was good to see Maryott take on Mr. Derek at their March fifth city council meeting. Mr. Derek, “what goes around comes around”. RESIGN REEVE!
@DonJuan… Thanks for posting the FPPC letter. It’s good that they are investigating Derek Reeve, Steve Oedekerk and The Scoop, although I would like to know more about the specific reasons why. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that it read more like a campaign ad than an actual news publication and that it lacked transparency with no editor, publisher or other ownership info listed? It would be nice to know. Appreciate you keeping us posted.