Presidential Candidate(s) Thomas Steyer(s), and Jury Duty

Thomas Steyer(s) sure do pay lots of political campaign contribution money. At least one of them ran for president in the 2020 campaign. According to many reports, U.S. presidential candidate Thomas Steyer showed up for jury duty in late August, 2019. At the Tom Steyer Twitter page, this August 26, 2019 tweet

https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1166127085745668096

stated that he " . . . had jury duty." Well, I believe that as a campaign issue, the Steyer campaign would have logically published many reports, pictures, vids, and tweets about his jury duty service. This material would spotlight

• Steyer's jury duty paperwork

• Steyer's arrival in the jury duty parking lot

• Steyer walking around on San Francisco sidewalks near the courtroom building, relying on the latest San Francisco poop app navigation tools

• Steyer walking through the metal detectors

• Steyer waiting in the jury duty ready room

• tons of Steyer selfies with other jurors

• Steyer waiting in the hallway outside a courtroom

• Steyer in the cafeteria

• potential post-jury duty Steyer interviews

and so on. Other jurors would have taken and published tons of selfies with him. Donald Trump, for example, got a lot of publicity about his own jury duty service. So did Senator Ted Cruz. However, I never found similar material for Presidential Candidate Steyer. He would have scored endless hours of free publicity for his presidential campaign if he physically showed up for jury duty. Even if Presidential Candidate Steyer stayed on call and never physically showed up at the courtroom building, he would logically tweet about this at least once a day while he waited, and he would have published many pix of his jury duty paperwork. In this way, he still would have squeezed tons of free publicity out of it. If Steyer has campaign consultants, at least one of them should have ordered him to do all this, and as it happened. He has billions of dollars, and he must pay them lots of money to think of these things. I trust what Mr. Steyer stated about his jury duty service. I also want to verify it. I doubt that Mr. Steyer(s) would ever tell a lie about his / their jury duty service . . .

Questions About Certain Barb(a)ra Streisand Political Campaign Contribution Money (PCCM) Payments, Part One

As part of my research for Common Sense - Third Millennium and the I, Juror blog, I focused on the political campaign contribution money (PCCM) history of Barb(a)ra Streisand. I built this spreadsheet file to show what I found. With a Google account, download the spreadsheet here. The file includes four tabs that cover the federal and California state PCCM activity of Streisand, and four similar tabs for Thomas Steyer. For Steyer, all information in this spreadsheet tab came from this old version of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website. This newer FEC website replaced that older version, but the information stayed the same. I noticed aspects of this PCCM information that seemed, in my personal opinion . . . "unusual". This article will explore those "unusual" aspects of specific PCCM payments made by Streisand, and will raise relevant questions about those payments. The information for both parts of this article originally came from this spreadsheet file, and I transferred the relevant information from that file to this second spreadsheet file to summarize it. I did not change the information as I transferred it from file to file, and for the tabs in the second file, I added row number, payment mailing address, and notes columns

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

for that payment. In image 2, item A showed a second Streisand payment, also received on September 9, 2006, this time paid to Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. I saw something really weird about these payments.

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

We couldn’t find any matches for:

21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925 Pomona, CA 91767-7888

Check the spelling or add more details such as the city or country.

and for that address, Google Maps returned

Partial matches

21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925 Pomona, CA 91767-7888

"21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925" "CA"

21650 W Oxnard St #1925

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

"Pomona, CA 91767"

Pomona, CA 91767

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

91767-7888

value. 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

and in the L.A. County index, I looked at page 278

1990 Thomas Guide, page 278 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA

and page 279

1990 Thomas Guide, page 279 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA

to find Oxnard Street. The CITY column for each Oxnard Street record shows "LA", which means "Los Angeles". Woodland Hills lands inside Los Angeles City territory, so the city looks correct for these Oxnard Street records. Then, I looked for a proven Pomona, CA address in the Thomas Guide index, to verify the findings. Starting at the bottom left of this image

1990 Thomas Guide, page 299 - an actual, Pomona, CA record at the lower left

I found two records for Temple Avenue in Pomona. Cal Poly Pomona has a verified mailing address location of

     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?

immediately.

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.

Questions About Certain Streisand / Steyer Political Campaign Contribution Money (PCCM) Payments, Part Two

Part One of this article described certain political campaign contribution money (PCCM) payments made by Barbra Streisand. Then, it asked questions about those payments. This second part will describe a sample of PCCM payments made by Thomas Steyer, and ask questions about those payments. This spreadsheet tab shows those Steyer payments, summarizing a row sample from this I, Juror spreadsheet tab. With a Google account, download the spreadsheet file here. All the information about these payments originally came from this old version of the Federal Election Commission website. This newer version has since replaced that older version..

This spreadsheet tab shows PCCM payments made by gentlemen named "Thomas Fahr Steyer," "Thomas F. Steyer," and "Thomas F Steyer." The Federal Election Commission website shows receipt dates for those payments between August 29, 2016 and August 31, 2016.

• "Thomas Fahr Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 29, 2016 by the Raul Ruiz Congressional campaign.
• "Thomas F. Steyer" made 63 PCCM payments, received on August 29, 2016 by organizations and candidates all around the U.S.
• "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 30, 2016 by the Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County. (Scroll to row 136 if necessary)
• "Thomas F. Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 31, 2016 by the Jerry McNerny Congressional campaign. (Scroll to row 138 if necessary)

Certain aspects of the Steyer payments shown in this spreadsheet tab stood out. First, contributor "Thomas Fahr Steyer" made one PCCM payment - number 1 (one) in the spreadsheet tab, received on August 29, 2016 - from the

1438 Webster St Ste 100
Oakland CA 94612-3229

address. Then, contributor "Thomas F. Steyer" made sixty-three contributions, all received on August 29, 2016, from the

3 Lagoon Dr Ste 400
Redwood City CA 94065-5157

and

3 Lagoon Dr Ste 400
Redwood City CA 94065-1565

addresses. Similar to the Barbra Streisand PCCM payments of September 9, 2006 described in Part One, Steyer paid PCCM money, from mailing addresses that have unexplained differences, on the same day. The spreadsheet tab shows those payments, numbered 2 (two) through 64 (sixty-four). We'll explore these payments shortly. Contributor "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment - number 65 (sixty-five), and received on August 30, 2016 - from the

111 Sutter St
San Francisco, CA 94104

address. Finally, contributor "Thomas F. Steyer" made a PCCM payment - number 66 (sixty-six) on the spreadsheet tab, from the

3030 Pacific Ave
San Francisco CA 94115-1014

address, and received on August 31, 2016.

This list

PAYMENT AMOUNT       COUNT $   878.92         6 $   878.95       13 $   878.96         9 $ 6850.55         7 $ 7207.95         7 $ 7535.59         7

summarizes the Steyer PCCM payments received on August 29, 2016. The sixty-four (64) Steyer PCCM payments, received on August 29, 2016, as shown in that list, raise many questions.

1. Why did people named Thomas Steyer use so many addresses for the PCCM payments received starting on August 29, 2016 through August 31, 2016?

"Thomas Fahr Steyer" issued a PCCM payment received on August 29, 2016, from an Oakland, CA address

"Thomas F. Steyer" issued 63 PCCM payments, 61 from the exact same Redwood City address, two from another Redwood City address that differs from the first group address only in the second zip code digit group, and all 63 received on August 30, 2016

"Thomas F Steyer" issued a PCCM payment, received on August 30, 2016, from a San Francisco, CA address

"Thomas F. Steyer" issued a PCCM payment, received on August 31, 2016, from a different San Francisco, CA address

2. The distance between the Oakland and Redwood City addresses exceeds thirty miles. The distance between the Redwood City and San Francisco Sutter Street addresses exceeds twenty-two miles. For the third and fourth PCCM payments described in the above list, the San Francisco addresses have a distance of about 2.8 miles between them. Why did people named Thomas Steyer travel between so many different addresses, and so fast, to make so many PCCM payments?

3. As an example, "Thomas F. Steyer" has paid $11 million for one PCCM payment, received less than two months after his PCCM payments received on August 29, 2016. Compared to that massive payment, why did he make 63 comparatively small PCCM payments, and all on one day, as described in the list of question 1) above? Why did Steyer make so many PCCM payments for the same small amounts? Why did Steyer choose these "non-round" numbers for these payments in the way he did?

4. These images

• image 1
• image 2
• image 3
• image 4

show that "Thomas F. Steyer" made four PCCM payments, each for $878.96, and each received on August 29, 2016. They also show that Kathryn Ann Taylor made four PCCM payments, each for $878.96, and each received on October 12, 2016. The Kathryn Ann Taylor PCCM payments happened from an address inside the same building where "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment received on August 30, 2016. So . . . for all of these payments, why would Taylor and Steyer choose the same "unusual" amount, and so many times?

_________

______________________

_________

Work to answer these questions proceeds because these questions directly relate to American government operations. Because these questions arose as part of research into and investigations about American jury duty law, I, Juror will report the results of its investigations into these questions.

The Hollywood 'Elite': Political Activism, Money, and Jury Duty . . .

To help explain the American Health Care Act, "expert" and Harvard economics PhD Jonathan Gruber freely ranted about " . . . the stupidity of the American voter." No one noticed or cared until Rich Weinstein

Twitter: @phillyrich1

discovered and publicized that rant. Rich's efforts caught on and America saw and heard the truth. As a result, we have a new verb: "to gruber." Rich motivated other " . . . idiots like [himself]" to find other examples. Well, a Hollywood screenwriter freely grubered in August, 2018 - in print - and I'm the idiot who caught the whole thing. This article describes what I found and the so-far unanswered questions behind it. Those unanswered questions reach into jury duty service fairness and equality.

________________________
_____________________________
________________________

On August 2, 2018, The Hollywood Reporter published Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Too Far Left for Hollywood? by Peter Kiefer and Chris Gardner. The article covered a late July / early August, 2018 visit to the Los Angeles area by Congressional candidate Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez. The reporters interviewed Hollywood screenwriter Jennifer Levin for their article. The article focused on Levin in one paragraph, and it included direct quotes. The article explained that Levin has worked on Hollywood productions as a screenwriter, and IMDB confirms this. In the paragraph, Levin made a comment about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Then, the paragraph explained that Levin

" . . . moonlights as a grassroots activist working to flip a number of California [Congressional] seats . . ."

and as a free, free-thinking American, Levin obviously has all the rights in America to do this. The article paragraph continued with Levin's quoted statement

"Let's be honest: We represent the money. We are the elite."

where she described herself and her colleagues. Note that I added the bold / italic formatting. Wow. In my opinion, those two sentences look explosive. They sure scared the hell out of me because combined with Levin's "grassroots activis[m]," they tied money and "elite" status all together. One would think that reporters Kiefer and Gardner would ask her questions about these statements. I would have thought that The Hollywood Reporter leadership would instruct Kiefer and Gardner, and / or other employees of The Hollywood Reporter, to further investigate these statements. To the best of my knowledge, no one at The Hollywood Reporter did any of this, so I did it for them. They're welcome.

I don't have much money. Therefore, I need Member of the Elite (MOTE) Levin to help me understand just exactly what " . . . We represent the money" means - more about this later. However, as a commoner American¹, I most definitely understand that " . . . We are the elite" part. As a non-lawyer, I have read the United States Constitution - cover to cover. The U.S. Constitution outlaws both federal-level and state-level titles of nobility. To the best of my knowledge, MOTE Levin and her colleagues do not have any titles of nobility - but that "elite" business sure looks noble to me. That "elite" sentence ties into our old friend Amendment 14, Equal Protection Clause, United States Constitution. I can't get enough of this clause. It works like duct tape, or WD-40. A non-lawyer commoner American like myself can use it everywhere to repair everything. Since MOTE Levin and her colleagues

1. "represent the money"

and

2. have "elite" status

then first, I want MOTE Levin to explain what these items exactly mean, in light of the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, I want MOTE Levin to explain just exactly how she / her colleagues "represent the money." Then, assuming the Equal Protection Clause works, I want her to explain what I can represent if I have no money to represent. Second, I want to know if MOTE Levin and / or her "elite" colleagues receive any sort of benefit from government employees, in any way, that is unavailable to commoner Americans like myself. If she / they do receive these benefits, I want the full story, background, and picture about that / those benefits. The alleged allegations about former Los Angeles County Property Tax Assessor John Noguez - unproven one way or another so far - make these questions totally relevant. The more recent arrest of Beverly Hills real estate developer Arman Gabaee also makes these questions totally relevant. Both Hollywood and Beverly Hills land in Los Angeles County territory.

In my journalist role, I wrote up what became a list of questions



for MOTE Levin. Click here to see that question list in a new browser tab, for download as a PDF. As mentioned earlier, in the question list I asked MOTE Levin, point-blank, to please explain how "representation of money" works. I ended up asking her nineteen (19) questions in total. I included plenty of questions about

1. her opinions about jury duty

2. her jury duty history

3. the jury duty history of other folks who "represent the money" and / or who have "elite" status

to learn more about how the "elite" handles American jury duty. I have the qualifications for this because in my role as a non-lawyer commoner American, I became the best jury duty law expert in America. Amendment I, Freedom of the Press Clause, United States Constitution guarantees me the right to ask these questions and to publish and report about these questions. Full disclosure: I researched the jury duty history of MOTE Levin the same way I researched the jury duty history of Barbra Streisand and Thomas Steyer. I did my best but once again, I found no information on this topic. Then, I had to find a way to contact MOTE Levin to send her the questions. After some research, I found the

@jenniferlevin22

Twitter handle. I sent this tweet to @jenniferlevin22 through Twitter. So far, MOTE Levin has not answered. I figured I waited long enough, so I published this article. I welcome answers to these questions from MOTE Levin and I will write a new article about her answers after she sends those answers to me.

---

¹ An American citizen who has never voluntarily paid and / or voluntarily received political campaign contribution money. See Common Sense - Third Millennium for more.^↩