LOS ANGELES CITY HALL vs D'ARCY'S DWP NON-PROFITS: Does Zuma Dogg Provide The LEGAL ANSWER to "Only One Audit Per Year," LOOPHOLE

For those who have heard about -- and are interested in RonGalpiern/EricGarcetti/MikeFeurer (LA City Hall's) "issue" (battle) with DWP's Brian D'Arcy and his two non-profit funds (of unaccountability) -- perhaps Mr. Dogg has the winning legal argument, for whiney-crybaby City Controller Ron "No Leg To Stand On" Galpiern -- to get through D'Arcy's "one audit per year" loophole. 

Galperin and City Attorney Mike Feuer successfully pressed this week for an early hearing before Superior Court Judge James Chalfant, now set for March 18.

HERE IS THE LEGALESE REGARDING "ONLY ONE AUDIT PER YEAR":  

"Either the DWP or the IBEW, or both, may at any time, but not more often than once every calendar year, require that the Trust be audited either by an independent certified public accounting firm or by the Controller of the City of Los Angeles."

HERE IS THE LEGAL ARGUMENT TO TAKE TO A JUDGE IF A SOMEONE INSIDE L.A. CITY HALL WOULD LIKE TO AUDIT D'ARCY'S DWP NON-PROFITS (or most likely have them subpoenaed).

ARGUMENT: It says, "or both..." If Zuma Dogg were Superior Court Judge, perhaps you could convince me that, "or both," does not mean, "as called for by both parties, together, for a single audit." However, "or both," means, "both parties may each require an audit, once a year." That's how I always interpreted it. It doesn't say, "Either the DWP or the IBEW, or both together, for a single, joint audit." So, D'Arcy's non-profits may be audited twice, per year, in total. I rest my case, your Honor.

[I don't know...maybe EVERYONE already thought of this, and just hasn't said it, yet. Or, maybe it's off the mark, cause I don't know all the details. BUT, seems like a loophole in the loophole, to me?]

FROM LA WEAKLY: In his opposition brief, Feuer described D'Arcy's one-audit-per-year-only argument as "absurd," as well as "the latest maneuver aimed at defying a basic truth: If you accept public funding, you must accept public scrutiny."

ZD EDITORIAL: City Attorney Mike Feuer is a nice guy, I have heard; but he clearly is a politician and don't sound like a much of a legal mind. "Absurd," is a whiny-crybaby, non-argument -- not a credible legal argument. And to say, "maneuver aimed at defying a basic truth," is also non-substantive. Sounds like there has already been a trial where it has been determined what the truth is, and that it is being defied/been found to have done something in violation of the truth. Not releasing the documents is not defying a basic truth, on it's face; simply because the documents are denied. And, when Feuer says, "If you accept public funding, you must accept public scrutiny," D'Arcy/DWP IS accepting public scrutiny. (I'm sure he reads the press and he handed over what documents he was required to disclose. And, in reality...since they are non-profits, you do NOT have to actually accept public scrutiny, just the money.) FEUER just doesn't like how D'Arcy is responding. But, Mike should understand, D'Arcy HAS INDEED provided the documents/transparency AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T, WHO APPROVES THE NON-PROFITS/401 (c) FORMS. SORRY YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Mr. Feuer. Maybe when Eric Garcetti runs for President of the U.S.A., he can fix that for you! I KNOW it's hard to not become all emotional and irrational, when you have NO ARGUMENT. (Sorry, Mike...by now you may have heard/read that I got "issues," in way I express myself, these days. #bipolar/#adjustment-disorder...lol.)

 ZumaDogg.com - @ZumaDoggLA