Moreno Valley district four (4) voters, you have a very important election coming up on June 6th to elect a representative to fill the seat left vacant by the early departure of Yxstian Gutierrez who chose his own vision over the visions of the voters of district four.   It wasn’t all that long ago Mr. Gutierrez was illegally appointed to fill the vacancy left behind by Marcelo Co who resigned from office in shame for his criminal acts and his involvement in rigging the Moreno Valley City Council votes in order to secure his vision along with the visions of his associates and friends.

It was their goal to seat a city council which was made up of allies who would “always vote yes” when Mr. Co wanted, in order for this to happen he had to select and fund candidates which were willing to participate in the council vote rigging which only required three votes, his along with his two chosen candidates.

Now you the voters of council district four are faced with the selection of a new council member, the choices are hard unless you throw into the mix what is shown above as well as what is provided below (portions from Marcelo Co’s plea deal with the United States Attorney’s Office).

To date there is only one candidate who not only fits the profile above Ulises Cabrera, but has on numerous occasions publically stated he was a “selected by the Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez and Mayor Pro Tem Victoria Baca” (one of those Marcelo Co needed to get elected to see their plan through) because he would always vote in favor of their vision, even the Mayor Yxstian Gutierrez has made the same public statements that “Ulises Cabrera shares his vision” and “will support his vision.”

Caution: DO NOT GO THE 3-0 ROAD

Please read the following before you vote! (From the Marcelo Co plea deal)

Defendant Solicits Campaign Donation From Business Owner

Defendant told CHS-2 that Defendant needed CHS-2’s help to get certain candidates elected to the City Council in the November 2012 election.

Defendant told CHS-2 that as a member of the City Council, he had already appointed his (Defendant’s) people to the planning commission and once he (Defendant) got his candidates elected to the City Council, he could pass any project he wanted. Defendant stated that he wanted to control at least four of the five votes on the City Council so that he would always have the three-vote majority needed to pass an agenda item. Defendant also explained how the four city council members could rotate one of them voting “no” on an item so that it would appear they did not always vote uniformly.

Defendant Solicits Campaign Donation from Undercover FBI Agent Posing as Land Broker

Defendant told UCE he needed help funding the campaigns of the candidates Defendant supported. Defendant told UCE to conceal UCE’s identity when making donations and to deal only in cash because checks can be traced.

Defendant told CHS-2 and UCE that any project they brought before the Moreno Valley City Council would be approved if Defendant could get the candidates he supported elected.

Defendant told CHS-2 and UCE that his relationship with them had to be kept secret. Defendant asked CHS-2 and UCE for $50,000 to $100,000 to support Defendant’s candidates.

Defendant Promises to Always Vote “Yes” on UCE’s Future Projects; Accepts $10,000 Cash Payment

Defendant offered to provide the UCE with confidential city information on future land zoning changes. Defendant revealed that to change the General Plan, Defendant needed money to fund candidates that will support his (Defendant’s) plan. Defendant then solicited money from UCE for his candidates’ campaigns. According to Defendant, he planned to speak to his candidates and coordinate how to rezone Moreno Valley.

To bolster his promise to UCE, Defendant told UCE that after Defendant’s election to the City Council in 2010, he told a large developer, who had supported his election bid, that he would always vote “yes11 on the developer’s projects even if it was a “pissing can the developer wanted rezoned.

During the meeting on April 13, 2012, UCE gave Defendant $10,000 in cash and Defendant promised to always vote “yes11 on UCE’s projects. Defendant told UCE not to tell anyone about the payment. Defendant told UCE he was going to use the money support two Moreno Valley City Council candidates in their bids for election and reelection. Defendant gave one candidate $3,000 on May 12, 2012 and the other $3,000 on June 18, 2012.

Defendant’s Candidates Elected to City Council; Formation of “Club 3-0”

In November 2012, both candidates defendant was supporting were elected to serve on the City Council. On December 4, 2012 Defendant met with UCE. Defendant told UCE that he, the two City Council members he had supported in the election, a local real 7 estate broker, and a large land developer had been meeting together discussing their plans to change the City of Moreno Valley. Defendant told UCE that he had the three votes he needed to make any changes he wanted. Defendant referred to himself, and the two City Council members he had supported in the election as “club 3-0.”

Is this really what you want from your elected officials, is this how you see your city (controlled), you have three other candidates in the race, chose wisely from those three and let Ulises Cabrera be, you don’t need another 3-0 or Marcelo Co.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Want a Copy of Marcelo Co’s FULL Plea Deal? CLICK HERE

Also see: Ulises Cabrera, a KID at Play 11-11-2016 (CLICK TO VIEW)

                 Evan Morgan, Barbie Doll Rape Video! (CLICK TO VIEW)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s