The Federal Election Commission (FEC) website states that "Barbara Streisand" paid PCCM to the campaign of Connecticut House of Representatives candidate Joseph Courtney. That campaign received the payment on September 9, 2006. Streisand made this payment from a Pomona, California address. Based on information from the FEC website, and the California state political campaign contribution websites here (this website is no longer active; this new website version replaced it), Streisand made only one PCCM payment from Pomona. At first, I did not think much about all this. However, I never really forgot about it and I recently took a closer look. Some research for this article shows that past this one payment, no clear connection between Streisand and Pomona exists. Then, I went back to the summary spreadsheet. On that spreadsheet tab, column K has links to the actual payment images as hosted by the FEC website. For the Pomona PCCM payment, I scrolled over to column K. From that cell, I opened this image
 |
| 1. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940431288 |
 |
| QR code for https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940431288 |
and sure enough, item B showed the payment information and the Pomona address. Then, back at the spreadsheet, I moved down one row, and in column K, I opened this image
 |
| 2. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940922555 |
 |
| QR code for https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940922555 |
Item A from image 2, and Item B from image 1, both clearly show that these political campaigns received these separate PCCM payments on the same day: September 9, 2006. The items show the name and address payment information
Item A (image 2):
Barbra Streisand
C/O Boulevard Management
21650 Oxnard St.
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Item B (image 1):
Barbara Streisand
c/o Boulevard Management
21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925
Pomona, CA 91767-7888
for the payments. For some unknown reason, the first names differ by one letter. However, the address information for the payments has huge differences. Bing Maps and Google Maps both independently show that the Item A (image two) address exists. When I typed the Item B (image one) address for Barbara Streisand in the Bing Maps upper left textbox, it returned
and for that address, Google Maps returnedWe couldn’t find any matches for:
Check the spelling or add more details such as the city or country.
and these both mean that these mapping tools did not find the Pomona address. Neither tool could find the address even when I removed Suite 1925. Then, I used SmartyStreets for a reverse lookup based on the Item B Zip Code
91767-7888value. For a ZIP Code lookup type and ZIP Code "91767-7888," SmartyStreets returned a map that did not show a street named "Oxnard."
This research verified that an "Oxnard Street" in Pomona, CA does not exist and did not exist in since late February, 2019. This street very likely never existed, but I decided to do some research to make sure. I found a Thomas Guide from 1990
 |
| Los Angeles County / Orange County Thomas Guide - 1990 Edition |
 |
| 1990 Thomas Guide, page 278 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA |
 |
| 1990 Thomas Guide, page 279 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA |
 |
| 1990 Thomas Guide, page 299 - an actual, Pomona, CA record at the lower left |
Cal Poly Pomona
3801 West Temple Avenue
Pomona, California 91768
and page 299 of the 1990 Thomas Guide shows that a Pomona, CA address has a CITY column code of "POM". So, all of this information, starting with the 1990 Thomas Guide, proves that Oxnard Street in Pomona, CA never existed in 1990. Pomona, CA most likely never built a temporary Oxnard Street, inside its territory, for the one-day September 9, 2006 personal use of Barbara Streisand. All the evidence shows that the address
21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925
Pomona, CA 91767-7888
that Barbara Streisand used for this September 9, 2006 political campaign contribution money payment, as described above, almost certainly never once existed. The Los Angeles County Assessor Portal verifies that this address never existed. The September 9, 2006 Barbra Streisand / Barbara Streisand payment information described here does not involve a simple typo. It involves major differences and logically, at least one impartial stakeholder, including the Federal Election Commission, should have raised red flags and asked questions about it. The campaign of House member Joe Courtney of Connecticut received the payment, and Rep. Courtney should have asked questions about it himself.
Taken together, all these facts look really improper - at best. It makes no logical sense that someone would pay two separate political campaign contributions, with
- two different names
- two source locations
- almost identical street addresses
- completely different cities and zip codes
and so close in time. These payments must have happened within a few days of each other because different political campaigns received them on the same day. This means that the person who wrote the paperwork for them probably knew to use consistent street address, city, and zip code information for those payments. At this time, I definitely don't understand why this "combined" paperwork would show an address that does not exist. These payments raise many questions. In no specific order:
1. If Barbra Streisand made both of these payments - within a few days of each other at most - why did she use two different names for them? If someone else filled out all the paperwork for these payments, did Barbra Streisand and / or Barbara Streisand approve the use of those different names?
2. If Barbra Streisand made both of these payments - within a few days of each other at most - why does one payment show an address that three websites can't find? Did Barbra Streisand and / or Barbara Streisand approve the use of this address information?
3. If one payment has incorrect address information, does that payment also have incorrect payment amount information?
4. Does and / or did the FEC approve the Barbra Streisand political campaign contribution payment with the apparently inconsistent information? If yes, why? If no, why not? Did the FEC ever investigate this issue?
5. Extending question 4, if the FEC investigated, they need to release the results of the investigation. If they did not investigate, why not? The IRS investigates and punishes incorrect tax return information wrongdoing from taxpayers, so based on Amendment 14, Equal Protection Clause, United States Constitution, the FEC must do the same with political campaign contribution money payments.
6. What do Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) know about these payments, and when did they know it?
7. If at least one of these payments involves illegal behavior, and Representative Courtney and / or Senator Murphy did not know about it, how do they plan to handle the situation, once they become aware of it?
8. Does other Barb(a)ra Streisand government paperwork (for example and including, but not limited to, IRS, SEC, California FTB, L.A. County Assessor's Office, etc.) show information that raises questions in a similar way? If yes, then law enforcement agencies must openly, publicly, and fully investigate the situation(s), and prosecute any detected illegal behavior, to the fullest extent of federal, state, and local law.
9. At least one piece of government paperwork shows that Barbara Streisand used a non-existent Pomona, CA mailing address (see above). "Barbara Streisand" is one letter away from "Barbra Streisand." If the Los Angeles County (LAC) jury duty system also shows that she / they use that Pomona, CA address, then she / they will never receive any jury duty paperwork sent to that address, because the address does not exist. The L.A. County jury duty system would have a major bureaucratic hassle to get the paperwork to her / them, at best. If this happened with her / their jury duty paperwork, I demand to know
- under what circumstances did the LAC jury duty system receive that address information?
- what steps / procedures transported that information to the LAC jury duty system?
- when did the LAC jury duty system receive that information?
- which LAC jury duty system employee(s) placed this information into the LAC jury duty system?
- did the LAC jury duty system ever audit the information for accuracy?
- if yes, what did it find?
- if no, why not?
- did the LAC jury duty system send jury duty paperwork to that address? If yes, when did it send that paperwork? If yes, what name(s) did it use to address the paperwork? If yes, then what happened?
18 U.S.C. § 1001 states
" . . . whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both . . ."
Barbara Streisand clearly did this behavior three (3) times. FEC paperwork is a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch(es) of the Government of the United States. The September 9, 2006 payments shown above alone clearly involve false writing, known to contain materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. Therefore, Barb(a)ra Streisand needs to get prosecuted in a federal court, and based on the evidence shown in this article, she needs to get fined and imprisoned if convicted. Otherwise, when I get answers to the above questions, I will publish a new article with those answers.
